too often to admire, such stiff and laboured discourses in writing;
but if it were even possible for a man to speak in the same pompous
diction in which Browne has written his vulgar errors, he would
certainly be very disagreeable. This reason, among others, may be
assigned for it; that however such false ornaments may please for a
time, yet, when a long and steady attention is required, we are tired
and disgusted with every thing which increases our labour, and diverts
the attention from the subject before us. A laboured style is a labour
even to the hearer. A simple style, like simple food, preserves the
appetite. But a profusion of ornament, like a profusion of sweets,
palls the appetite and becomes disgusting. A man might as soon think
of filling his stomach with sweetmeats, as going through a long debate
filled with pompous epithets and sounding language. If we have any
doubt of its being ridiculous, let us only suppose a man arguing an
abstruse subject in metaphysics, in the blank verse of Milton, or the
exact rhymes of Pope. The absurdity is the same, only different in
degree. I would not be understood to cut off an extempore speaker from
sublime expressions; because I do not suppose these to be inconsistent
with simplicity of style. I really doubt if there be any such thing as
sublimity of style, strictly speaking. But, indeed, rather believe
that the sublime depends upon the thoughts, which are the more sublime
by being clearly and simply expressed, This, however, is not material
at present. It is certainly impossible for a speaker to carry laboured
periods into his extempore discourses: it is no less certain, that in
general, a simple style is to be preferred, and that he would be
ridiculous and disagreeable if he could do it; and as extempore
speaking is a great object, which we ought to have in view in the
formation of our style, this may be used as one argument why we should
study a simple style."