quire, a more elaborate diction than other kinds; and that in every kind of composition there are some parts wherein even the display of art is more allowable than in other parts. The observations with regard to the proper subjects for periods will very nearly answer here, and therefore need not to be repeated. The antithesis, it is thought, is particularly unfavourable to persuasion, and therefore quite unfit for the more vehement and argumentative parts of a discourse. This is true of some sorts of antithesis (for they differ greatly in their nature), but it is not true of all. It is true of such as are sometimes found in long and complicated sentences. But it is not true of those which sentences of a less compound nature may admit. The enthymeme itself, the common syllogism of orators, is often successfully cast into this mould. Demetrius Phalereus, in his treatise of elocution, hath given us an example of this, from one of the most eloquent orations of Demosthenes against his famous rival. The example translated into English equally suits our present purpose. "For as, if any of those had then been condemned, || youwould not now have transgressed; so if you should now be condemned, || others will not hereafter transgress." The sentence is besides a perfect period, consisting of two members, each of which is subdivided into two clauses. I shall give the same argument with as little apparent antithesis as possible, by imitating the attempt which Demetrius hath made to express the sense in a looser manner. "Do not overlook this transgression of your laws; for if such transgressors were punished, this man would not now have acted as he hath done; nor will another do so afterwards, if he should be condemned on this occasions." The argument is the same, though much less forcibly, and even less naturally expressed. But if the enthymeme is often cast into the form of antithesis, we may say of the dilemma, a species of argument in like manner frequent with orators, that it is hardly susceptible of another form, as in that given by Cicero: "If he is a bad man, why do you associate with him? if he is a good man, why do you accuse him??" Nor are these the only sorts of argument that may be used in this manner. There is hardly any which may not in some cases derive both light and energy from this figure. What can be more cogently urged, or better adapted for silencing contradiction, than the answer which Balaam gave Balak, who used various expedients to induce him to turn the blessing Περι Ερμ. ΛΑ. Ωσπερ γας ειτις εκείνων ἑαλω, συ τα δ' ουκ αν εγραψας· ούτως αν συ νυν άλως αλλος ου γραψει. 8 Ibid. Μη επιτρέπετε τοις τα παρανομα γράφουσιν· ει γας εκωλυοντο, ουκ αν νυν οὗτος ταυτα εγραψεν ουδ έτερος ετι γραψει, τουτου νυν ἁλωντος. 9 De Inventione, lib. i. As the antithesis in the words is more pefect, and the expression more simple in the Latin, than it is possible to render them in a translation into any modern tongue; so the argument itself appears more forcible, “Si improbus est, cur uteris: sin probus, cur accusas?" Yet the prophet's he had pronounced on Israel into a curse. reply runs wholly in antithesis. "God is not a man, || that he should lie; . . neither the son of man, || that he should repent. Hath he said, || and shall he not do it? . or hath he spoken, || and shall he not make it good1?" In the same antithetic form the Psalmist disposeth his argument in support of the divine knowledge." He that planted the ear, || shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, I shall he not see?" He argues from the effect to the cause, the only way in which we can argue intelligibly concerning the divine attributes. But it would not be easy, I imagine, to give in so few words either a more perspicuous or a more persuasive turn to the reasoning. It is not then every kind of antithesis that either savours of artifice, or is unsuited to persuasion. One thing to which it seems agreed on all sides that this figure is particularly adapted, is the drawing of characters. You hardly now meet with a character either in prose or in verse, that is not wholly delineated in antithesis. This usage is perhaps excessive. Yet the fitness of the manner can scarcely be questioned, when one considers that the contrasted features in this moral painting serve to ascertain the direction and boundaries of one another with greater precision than could otherwise be accomplished. It is too nice a matter, without the aid of this artifice, for even the most copious and expressive language. For a specimen in this way take these lines of Pope: Should such a man, too fond to rule alone, Bear, like the Turk, no brother near the throne, With what a masterly hand are the colours in this picture blended; and how admirably do the different traits, thus opposed, serve, as it were, to touch up and shade one another! I would not be understood by this to signify my opinion of its likeness to the original. I should be sorry to think that it deserves this praise. The poet had received, or fancied he had received, great provocation. And perfect impartiality, in one under the influence of resentment, is more than can be expected 1 Numb. xxiii. 19. 3 Prologue to the Satires. 2 Psalm xciv. 9. from human nature. I only speak of the character here exhibited, as one who speaking of a portrait, without knowing the person for whom it was drawn, says it is well painted and that there is both life and expression in the countenance. If there be any style of composition which excludes antithesis. altogether (for I am not positive that there is), it is the pathetic. But the true reason which hath induced some critics immoderately to decry this figure is, that some authors are disposed immoderately to employ it. One extreme naturally drives those who perceive the error to the opposite extreme. It rarely leaves them, even though persons of good sense and critical discernment, precisely where they were before. Such is the repulsive power of jarring tastes. Nay, there is a kind of mode, which in these, as well as in other matters, often influences our censures without our knowing it. It is this which sometimes leads us to condemn as critics, what as authors we ourselves practise. Witness the following reproach from the author just now quoted. I see a chief who leads my chosen sons, All arm'd with points, antitheses, and puns1. On the other hand it is certain, that the more agreeable the apposite and temperate use of this figure is, the more offensive is the abuse, or, which is nearly the same, the immoderate use of it. When used moderately, the appearance of art, which it might otherwise have, is veiled, partly by the energy of the expression, which doth not permit the hearer at first to attend critically to the composition, and partly by the simplicity, or at least the more artless structure, both of the preceding sentences and of the following. But if a discourse run in a continued string of antithesis, it is impossible the hearer should not become sensible of this particularity. The art is in that case quite naked. Then indeed the frequency of the figure renders it insipid, the sameness tiresome, and the artifice unsufferable. The only original qualities of style which are excluded from no part of a performance, nay, which ought, on the contrary, to pervade the whole, are purity and perspicuity. The others are suited merely to particular subjects and occasions. And if this be true of the qualities themselves, it must certainly be true of the tropes and figures which are subservient to these qualities. In the art of cookery, those spiceries which give the highest relish must be used the most sparingly. Who then could endure a dish wherein these were the only ingredients? There is no trope or figure that is not capable of a good effect. I not except those which are reckoned of the lowest value, alliteration, paronomasia, or even pun. But then the effect ▲ Dunciad. depends entirely on the circumstances. If these are not properly adjusted, it is always different from what it was intended to be, and often the reverse. The antithesis in particular gives a kind of lustre and emphasis to the expression. It is the conviction of this that hath rendered some writers intemperate in the use of it. But the excess itself is an evidence of its value. There is no risk of intemperance in using a liquor which has neither spirit nor flavour. On the contrary, the richer the beverage is, the danger is the greater, and therefore it ought to be used with the greater caution. Quintilian hath remarked concerning the writings of Seneca, which are stuffed with antithesis, that "they abound in pleasant faults5." The example had not been dangerous, if the faults had not been pleasant. But the danger here was the greater, as the sentiments conveyed under these figures were excellent. The thought recommended the expression. Anadmiration of the former insinuated a regard to the latter, with which it was so closely connected, and both very naturally engaged imitation. Hence Seneca is justly considered as one of the earliest corrupters of the Roman eloquence. And here we may remark by the way, that the language of any country is in no hazard of being corrupted by bad writers. The hazard is only when a writer of considerable talents hath not perfect chastity of taste in composition; but, as was the case of Seneca, affects to excess what in itself is agreeable. Such a style, compared with the more manly elocution of Cicero, we call effeminate, as betraying a sort of feminine fondness for glitter and ornament. There is some danger that both French and English will be courrpted in the same manner. There have been some writers of eminence in both, who might be charged, perhaps as justly as Seneca, with abounding in pleasant faults. But enough of the antithesis; I return to the consideration of periods in general. And on this head I shall only further remark, that when they consist of complex members, we must follow the same rule in arranging the clauses of each member, in order to give all possible energy to the sentence, that we do in arranging the members of the period. By doing thus, we shall never be in danger of thinking that the member is complete till it actually be so, just as by the structure of the period we are prevented from thinking the sentence finished before the end. A disappointment in the former case is of less moment, but it is still of some. In each it occasions a degree of languor which weakens the expression. I shall give an example of a period where, in one of the members, this rule is not observed. "Having already shown how the fancy is affected by the works of Nature, * Instit. Lib. x. Cap. i. Abundant dulcibus vitiis. and after wards considered in general both the works of Nature and of Art, how they mutually assist and complete each other, || in forming such scenes and prospects || as are most apt to delight the mind of the beholder; I shall in this paper throw together some reflections on that particular art | which has a more immediate tendency than any other, || to produce those pleasures of the imagination, || which have hitherto been the subject of this discourse." This sentence is a period, agreeably to the definition formerly given. Wherever we stop, the sentence is imperfect till we reach the end. But the members are not all composed according to the rule laid down. It consisteth of three members. The first ends at Nature, is a single clause, and therefore not affected by the rule; the second is complex, consisting of several clauses, and ends at beholder; the third is also complex, and concludes the sentence. The last member cannot be faulty, else the sentence would be no period. The fault must then be in the structure of the second, which is evidently loose. That member, though not the sentence, might conclude, and a reader naturally supposes that it doth conclude, first at the word art, afterwards at the word other, both which are before its real conclusion. Such a composition therefore even in periods, occasions, though in a less degree, the same kind of disappointment to the reader, and consequently the same appearance of feebleness in the style, which result from long, loose, and complex sentences. A very little alteration in the faulty member will unite the clause more intimately, and entirely remove the exception; as thus"and afterwards considered in general, how in forming such scenes and prospects, as are most apt to delight the mind of the beholder, the works both of Nature and of Art mutually assist and complete each other." It may be thought, and justly too, that this care will sometimes make the expression appear elaborate. I shall only recommend it as one of the surest means of preventing this effect, to render the members as simple as possible, and particularly to avoid synonymas and redundancies, of which there are a few in the member now criticized. Such are scenes and prospects, assist and complete, mutually and each other. With the aid of this reformation also, the whole period will appear much better compacted as follows; "Having already shown how the fancy is affected by the works of Nature; and afterwards considered in general || how in forming such scenes as are most apt to delight the mind of the beholder, the works both of Nature and Art assist each other; shall in this paper throw together some reflections on that particular art, which has a more immediate tendency than any 6 Spectator, No. 415. O. |