m gaining the universal love and esteem of all men.' Either of the two words in italics might have been used, but not both.

It is also considered as of the nature of tautology to lengthen a sentence by coupling words altogether or nearly synonymous, whether they be substantives or adjectives, verbs or adverbs. This fault is very common, and to be found even in our best writers. "In the Attic commonwealth," says Doctor Swift, "it was the privilege and birthright of every citizen and poet to rail aloud and in public." If he had said simply, "In the Attic commonwealth it was the privilege of every citizen to rail in public," the sentence would have lost nothing of the sense. And it is an invariable maxim, that words which add nothing to the sense or to the clearness must diminish the force of the expression. There are certain synonymas which it is become customary with some writers regularly to link together, insomuch that a reader no sooner meets with one of them than he anticipates the introduction of its usual attendant. It is needless to quote authorities; I shall only produce a few of those couples which are wont to be thus conjoined, and which every English reader will recollect with ease. Such are, plain and evident, clear and obvious, worship and adoration, pleasure and satisfaction, bounds and limits, suspicion and jealousy, courage and resolution, intents and purposes. The frequent recurrence of such phrases is not, indeed, more repugnant to vivacity than it is to dignity of style.

But is there no occasion on which synonymous words may be used properly? I answer, There are two occasions; and I do not at present recollect any other. One is, when an obscurer term, which we cannot avoid employing, on account of some connexion with what either precedes or follows, needs to be explained by one that is clearer. The other is, when the language of the passions is exhibited. Passion naturally dwells on its object: the impassioned speaker always attempts to rise in expression; but when that is impracticable, he recurs to repetition and synonymy, and thereby, in some measure, produces the same effect. The hearer, perceiving him, as it were, overpowered by his subject, and at a loss to find words adequate to the strength of his feelings, is by sympathy carried along with him, and enters into all his sentiments. There is in this case an expression in the very effort shown by recurring to synonymas, which supplies the deficiency in the words themselves. Bolingbroke exclaims in an invective against the times," But all is little, and low, and mean among us." It must be owned that there

*Spectator, No. 467, Z. t Spirit of Patriotism.

Preface to the Tale of a Tub

is here a kind of amplification, or, at least, a stronger expres sion of indignation, than any one of these three epithets could have effected alone; yet there is no climax in the sentence, and in this metaphorical use of the words no sensi. ble difference of signification.* But everybody must perceive that this manner suits only the popular and declamatory style, and that in those compositions which admit no species of the pathetic, it can have no place.

I observe, farther, that an adjective and its substantive will sometimes include a tautology. This happens when the former expresses nothing but what is implied in the signification of the latter: "Let them," says the craftsman, "throw as much foul dirt at me as they please." Of the same stamp are the verdant green, the umbrageous shade, the sylvan forest, expressions not frequently to be met with, except, perhaps, in the writings of some of our minor poets. First aggressors, standard-pattern, subject-matter, and some few, are much com moner, but deserve to be exploded for the same reason.

Lastly, in some single words there is so much of the ap pearance of tautology, that they ought, in prose at least, to be avoided. Such are, Most highest, worser, lesser, chiefest, extremest, for Most high, worse, less, chief, extreme. The first occurs often in the translation of the Psalms inserted in the liturgy, and has thence acquired something venerable in its appearance; the second, though used in Shakspeare's time, is at present obsolete. I know not why the other three have not before now shared the same fate.

66

PART II. Pleonasm.

Another trespass against this species of vivacity is the pleonasm, which implies barely superfluity, or more than enough. Here, though the words do not, as in the tautology, repeat the sense, they add nothing to it. For instance They returned back again to the same city from whence they came forth," instead of "They returned to the city whence they came." The five words back, again, same, from, and forth, are mere expletives. They serve neither for ornament nor for use, and are therefore to be regarded as encumbrances. “I went home," says the Guardian, “full of * In these words of Cicero concerning Catiline, "Abiit, excessit, evasit, erupit," there is a stronger expression of triumph than in any of them singly. † No. 232.

It is to this, I think, solely, that the approbation of those whose ears are accustomed to that expression in public worship is to be ascribed, and not, as Dr. Lowth supposes [Introd. Adject.], to a singular propriety from the subject to which it is applied, the Supreme Being, who is higher than the highest. For if this reason were good, we should also find a singular propriety in the phrases most wisest and most best, when applied to God, be cause he is as certainly wiser than the wisest, and better than the best. By the same rule, the Supremest Being would be a title much more emphat. ical than the Supreme Being.

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 yester day," 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.

§ No. 206.

* No. 34. 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."

Ha

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 o 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 spa ringly, if at all, in prose.

It is worth while to remark, that the addition of a shor 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 add. ed, 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. Tragie 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 "1 heard a tragical story” for a mournful story; and “I met with a comical adventure" for a droll adventure.

We sav

и ров

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,' 99.66 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