Today many writing experts tells us to practice brevity and shun verbosity. Do they mean that all expressions, when expanded are verbose? Are they all to be rejected? Are they all unclear? I have read a book written by Erasmus called De Copia. He encourages the abundant style. In his book, he explains how to state the same propositions in a multitude of ways. When a sentence is reworded, sometimes it is longer. But he explains that after trying these methods on numerous expressions, writers will be no longer be at a loss for words, and but will have much greater richness and variety. But is this acceptable? Certainly, we may want to say something differently, to make it sound more poetic. And De Copia provides us with the methods to do so. But is this acceptable? If I take the simple sentence: "The boy loves the girl", it appears that there is nearly no way to word this differently without increasing the word count. Not in complete faithfulness to the strategies in De Copia, but in what I think to be additional ways, though these ways may in fact be in it, myself not knowing, I thought to express the sentence in the following ways: 1. In the boy is love, love for the girl. 2. The boy has a feeling, a feeling of love, which he feels for the girl. 3. The boy has love for the girl. 4. The boy is the source of a beam of love that beams upon the girl. 5. Dwelling in the boy is love for the girl. Now I did not in these examples faithfully use the methods that are given in De Copia. He provides examples that are much more acceptable for a different sentence altogether. But the point should be clear that using synonyms and various figures we can vary an expression. But is this acceptable? In this time so many writers encourage us to be a brief as possible. But it is evident that if we are always brief, we cannot achieve a certain poetic feel in our words that require abundance. If we strive for brevity always, we will not be able to write in iambic pentameter, nor will we be able to achieve many rhythmic effects. If we state something in the most obvious and direct way possible, we will certainly not achieve rhythmic effects. But is copia the answer? There are many works of prose that sound beautiful, and yet they seem concise? Are they truly concise? By what means were the propositions worded, that they appeared brief, and yet rhythmical. Considering the King James Bible, some have deemed it concise, other have deemed it inflated. How do we explain its lyrical phrasing? Certainly the advice that we should try as hard as we can to phrase things in different ways is not the best. It is better to give advice on how to phrase things. De Copia provides rhetorical methods for rephrasing sentences. But copia seems to be the expansion of words. And how shall we practice copia, without becoming unclear? When a sentence is expanded, it is often made unclear or wordy. And how do we define wordiness? Do we call something wordy simply because it uses more words?