1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
|
<!DOCTYPE html
PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" />
<title>Style</title>
</head>
<body>
<h2>
<a href="#startoftext">Style, by Walter Raleigh</a>
</h2>
<pre>
The Project Gutenberg EBook of Style, by Walter Raleigh
(#2 in our series by Walter Raleigh)
Copyright laws are changing all over the world. Be sure to check the
copyright laws for your country before downloading or redistributing
this or any other Project Gutenberg eBook.
This header should be the first thing seen when viewing this Project
Gutenberg file. Please do not remove it. Do not change or edit the
header without written permission.
Please read the "legal small print," and other information about the
eBook and Project Gutenberg at the bottom of this file. Included is
important information about your specific rights and restrictions in
how the file may be used. You can also find out about how to make a
donation to Project Gutenberg, and how to get involved.
**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts**
**eBooks Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971**
*****These eBooks Were Prepared By Thousands of Volunteers!*****
Title: Style
Author: Walter Raleigh
Release Date: September, 1997 [EBook #1038]
[This file was first posted on September 2, 1997]
[Most recently updated: May 23, 2003]
Edition: 10
Language: English
Character set encoding: US-ASCII
</pre>
<p><a name="startoftext"></a></p>
<h1>STYLE</h1>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines3"><br /><br /><br /></div>
<p>Style, the Latin name for an iron pen, has come to designate the
art that handles, with ever fresh vitality and wary alacrity, the fluid
elements of speech. By a figure, obvious enough, which yet might
serve for an epitome of literary method, the most rigid and simplest
of instruments has lent its name to the subtlest and most flexible of
arts. Thence the application of the word has been extended to
arts other than literature, to the whole range of the activities of
man. The fact that we use the word “style” in speaking
of architecture and sculpture, painting and music, dancing, play-acting,
and cricket, that we can apply it to the careful achievements of the
housebreaker and the poisoner, and to the spontaneous animal movements
of the limbs of man or beast, is the noblest of unconscious tributes
to the faculty of letters. The pen, scratching on wax or paper,
has become the symbol of all that is expressive, all that is intimate,
in human nature; not only arms and arts, but man himself, has yielded
to it. His living voice, with its undulations and inflexions,
assisted by the mobile play of feature and an infinite variety of bodily
gesture, is driven to borrow dignity from the same metaphor; the orator
and the actor are fain to be judged by style. “It is most
true,” says the author of <i>The Anatomy of</i> <i>Melancholy</i>,
“<i>stylus virum arguit</i>, our style bewrays us.”
Other gestures shift and change and flit, this is the ultimate and enduring
revelation of personality. The actor and the orator are condemned
to work evanescent effects on transitory material; the dust that they
write on is blown about their graves. The sculptor and the architect
deal in less perishable ware, but the stuff is recalcitrant and stubborn,
and will not take the impress of all states of the soul. Morals,
philosophy, and aesthetic, mood and conviction, creed and whim, habit,
passion, and demonstration—what art but the art of literature
admits the entrance of all these, and guards them from the suddenness
of mortality? What other art gives scope to natures and dispositions
so diverse, and to tastes so contrarious? Euclid and Shelley,
Edmund Spenser and Herbert Spencer, King David and David Hume, are all
followers of the art of letters.</p>
<p>In the effort to explain the principles of an art so bewildering
in its variety, writers on style have gladly availed themselves of analogy
from the other arts, and have spoken, for the most part, not without
a parable. It is a pleasant trick they put upon their pupils,
whom they gladden with the delusion of a golden age, and perfection
to be sought backwards, in arts less complex. The teacher of writing,
past master in the juggling craft of language, explains that he is only
carrying into letters the principles of counterpoint, or that it is
all a matter of colour and perspective, or that structure and ornament
are the beginning and end of his intent. Professor of eloquence
and of thieving, his winged shoes remark him as he skips from metaphor
to metaphor, not daring to trust himself to the partial and frail support
of any single figure. He lures the astonished novice through as
many trades as were ever housed in the central hall of the world’s
fair. From his distracting account of the business it would appear
that he is now building a monument, anon he is painting a picture (with
brushes dipped in a gallipot made of an earthquake); again he strikes
a keynote, weaves a pattern, draws a wire, drives a nail, treads a measure,
sounds a trumpet, or hits a target; or skirmishes around his subject;
or lays it bare with a dissecting knife; or embalms a thought; or crucifies
an enemy. What is he really doing all the time?</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>Besides the artist two things are to be considered in every art,—the
instrument and the audience; or, to deal in less figured phrase, the
medium and the public. From both of these the artist, if he would
find freedom for the exercise of all his powers, must sit decently aloof.
It is the misfortune of the actor, the singer, and the dancer, that
their bodies are their sole instruments. On to the stage of their
activities they carry the heart that nourishes them and the lungs wherewith
they breathe, so that the soul, to escape degradation, must seek a more
remote and difficult privacy. That immemorial right of the soul
to make the body its home, a welcome escape from publicity and a refuge
for sincerity, must be largely foregone by the actor, who has scant
liberty to decorate and administer for his private behoof an apartment
that is also a place of business. His ownership is limited by
the necessities of his trade; when the customers are gone, he eats and
sleeps in the bar-parlour. Nor is the instrument of his performances
a thing of his choice; the poorest skill of the violinist may exercise
itself upon a Stradivarius, but the actor is reduced to fiddle for the
term of his natural life upon the face and fingers that he got from
his mother. The serene detachment that may be achieved by disciples
of greater arts can hardly be his, applause touches his personal pride
too nearly, the mocking echoes of derision infest the solitude of his
retired imagination. In none of the world’s great polities
has the practice of this art been found consistent with noble rank or
honourable estate. Christianity might be expected to spare some
sympathy for a calling that offers prizes to abandonment and self-immolation,
but her eye is fixed on a more distant mark than the pleasure of the
populace, and, as in gladiatorial Rome of old, her best efforts have
been used to stop the games. Society, on the other hand, preoccupied
with the art of life, has no warmer gift than patronage for those whose
skill and energy exhaust themselves on the mimicry of life. The
reward of social consideration is refused, it is true, to all artists,
or accepted by them at their immediate peril. By a natural adjustment,
in countries where the artist has sought and attained a certain modest
social elevation, the issue has been changed, and the architect or painter,
when his health is proposed, finds himself, sorely against the grain,
returning thanks for the employer of labour, the genial host, the faithful
husband, the tender father, and other pillars of society. The
risk of too great familiarity with an audience which insists on honouring
the artist irrelevantly, at the expense of the art, must be run by all;
a more clinging evil besets the actor, in that he can at no time wholly
escape from his phantasmal second self. On this creature of his
art he has lavished the last doit of human capacity for expression;
with what bearing shall he face the exacting realities of life?
Devotion to his profession has beggared him of his personality; ague,
old age and poverty, love and death, find in him an entertainer who
plies them with a feeble repetition of the triumphs formerly prepared
for a larger and less imperious audience. The very journalist—though
he, too, when his profession takes him by the throat, may expound himself
to his wife in phrases stolen from his own leaders—is a miracle
of detachment in comparison; he has not put his laughter to sale.
It is well for the soul’s health of the artist that a definite
boundary should separate his garden from his farm, so that when he escapes
from the conventions that rule his work he may be free to recreate himself.
But where shall the weary player keep holiday? Is not all the
world a stage?</p>
<p>Whatever the chosen instrument of an art may be, its appeal to those
whose attention it bespeaks must be made through the senses. Music,
which works with the vibrations of a material substance, makes this
appeal through the ear; painting through the eye; it is of a piece with
the complexity of the literary art that it employs both channels,—as
it might seem to a careless apprehension, indifferently.</p>
<p>For the writer’s pianoforte is the dictionary, words are the
material in which he works, and words may either strike the ear or be
gathered by the eye from the printed page. The alternative will
be called delusive, for, in European literature at least, there is no
word-symbol that does not imply a spoken sound, and no excellence without
euphony. But the other way is possible, the gulf between mind
and mind may be bridged by something which has a right to the name of
literature although it exacts no aid from the ear. The picture-writing
of the Indians, the hieroglyphs of Egypt, may be cited as examples of
literary meaning conveyed with no implicit help from the spoken word.
Such an art, were it capable of high development, would forsake the
kinship of melody, and depend for its sensual elements of delight on
the laws of decorative pattern. In a land of deaf-mutes it might
come to a measure of perfection. But where human intercourse is
chiefly by speech, its connexion with the interests and passions of
daily life would perforce be of the feeblest, it would tend more and
more to cast off the fetters of meaning that it might do freer service
to the jealous god of visible beauty. The overpowering rivalry
of speech would rob it of all its symbolic intent and leave its bare
picture. Literature has favoured rather the way of the ear and
has given itself zealously to the tuneful ordering of sounds.
Let it be repeated, therefore, that for the traffic of letters the senses
are but the door-keepers of the mind; none of them commands an only
way of access,—the deaf can read by sight, the blind by touch.
It is not amid the bustle of the live senses, but in an under-world
of dead impressions that Poetry works her will, raising that in power
which was sown in weakness, quickening a spiritual body from the ashes
of the natural body. The mind of man is peopled, like some silent
city, with a sleeping company of reminiscences, associations, impressions,
attitudes, emotions, to be awakened into fierce activity at the touch
of words. By one way or another, with a fanfaronnade of the marching
trumpets, or stealthily, by noiseless passages and dark posterns, the
troop of suggesters enters the citadel, to do its work within.
The procession of beautiful sounds that is a poem passes in through
the main gate, and forthwith the by-ways resound to the hurry of ghostly
feet, until the small company of adventurers is well-nigh lost and overwhelmed
in that throng of insurgent spirits.</p>
<p>To attempt to reduce the art of literature to its component sense-elements
is therefore vain. Memory, “the warder of the brain,”
is a fickle trustee, whimsically lavish to strangers, giving up to the
appeal of a spoken word or unspoken symbol, an odour or a touch, all
that has been garnered by the sensitive capacities of man. It
is the part of the writer to play upon memory, confusing what belongs
to one sense with what belongs to another, extorting images of colour
at a word, raising ideas of harmony without breaking the stillness of
the air. He can lead on the dance of words till their sinuous
movements call forth, as if by mesmerism, the likeness of some adamantine
rigidity, time is converted into space, and music begets sculpture.
To see for the sake of seeing, to hear for the sake of hearing, are
subsidiary exercises of his complex metaphysical art, to be counted
among its rudiments. Picture and music can furnish but the faint
beginnings of a philosophy of letters. Necessary though they be
to a writer, they are transmuted in his service to new forms, and made
to further purposes not their own.</p>
<p>The power of vision—hardly can a writer, least of all if he
be a poet, forego that part of his equipment. In dealing with
the impalpable, dim subjects that lie beyond the border-land of exact
knowledge, the poetic instinct seeks always to bring them into clear
definition and bright concrete imagery, so that it might seem for the
moment as if painting also could deal with them. Every abstract
conception, as it passes into the light of the creative imagination,
acquires structure and firmness and colour, as flowers do in the light
of the sun. Life and Death, Love and Youth, Hope and Time, become
persons in poetry, not that they may wear the tawdry habiliments of
the studio, but because persons are the objects of the most familiar
sympathy and the most intimate knowledge.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>How long, O Death? And shall thy feet depart<br />Still a young
child’s with mine, or wilt thou stand<br />Full grown the helpful
daughter of my heart,<br />What time with thee indeed I reach the strand<br />Of
the pale wave which knows thee what thou art,<br />And drink it in the
hollow of thy hand?</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>And as a keen eye for the imagery attendant on a word is essential
to all writing, whether prose or poetry, that attempts the heart, so
languor of the visual faculty can work disaster even in the calm periods
of philosophic expatiation. “It cannot be doubted,”
says one whose daily meditations enrich <i>The People’s Post-Bag</i>,
“that Fear is, to a great extent, the mother of Cruelty.”
Alas, by the introduction of that brief proviso, conceived in a spirit
of admirably cautious self-defence, the writer has unwittingly given
himself to the horns of a dilemma whose ferocity nothing can mitigate.
These tempered and conditional truths are not in nature, which decrees,
with uncompromising dogmatism, that either a woman is one’s mother,
or she is not. The writer probably meant merely that “fear
is one of the causes of cruelty,” and had he used a colourless
abstract word the platitude might pass unchallenged. But a vague
desire for the emphasis and glamour of literature having brought in
the word “mother,” has yet failed to set the sluggish imagination
to work, and a word so glowing with picture and vivid with sentiment
is damped and dulled by the thumb-mark of besotted usage to mean no
more than “cause” or “occasion.” Only
for the poet, perhaps, are words live winged things, flashing with colour
and laden with scent; yet one poor spark of imagination might save them
from this sad descent to sterility and darkness.</p>
<p>Of no less import is the power of melody which chooses, rejects,
and orders words for the satisfaction that a cunningly varied return
of sound can give to the ear. Some critics have amused themselves
with the hope that here, in the laws and practices regulating the audible
cadence of words, may be found the first principles of style, the form
which fashions the matter, the apprenticeship to beauty which alone
can make an art of truth. And it may be admitted that verse, owning,
as it does, a professed and canonical allegiance to music, sometimes
carries its devotion so far that thought swoons into melody, and the
thing said seems a discovery made by the way in the search for tuneful
expression.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>What thing unto mine ear<br />Wouldst thou convey,—what secret
thing,<br />O wandering water ever whispering?<br />Surely thy speech
shall be of her,<br />Thou water, O thou whispering wanderer,<br />What
message dost thou bring?</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>In this stanza an exquisitely modulated tune is played upon the syllables
that make up the word “wandering,” even as, in the poem
from which it is taken, there is every echo of the noise of waters laughing
in sunny brooks, or moaning in dumb hidden caverns. Yet even here
it would be vain to seek for reason why each particular sound of every
line should be itself and no other. For melody holds no absolute
dominion over either verse or prose; its laws, never to be disregarded,
prohibit rather than prescribe. Beyond the simple ordinances that
determine the place of the rhyme in verse, and the average number of
syllables, or rhythmical beats, that occur in the line, where shall
laws be found to regulate the sequence of consonants and vowels from
syllable to syllable? Those few artificial restrictions, which
verse invents for itself, once agreed on, a necessary and perilous license
makes up the rest of the code. Literature can never conform to
the dictates of pure euphony, while grammar, which has been shaped not
in the interests of prosody, but for the service of thought, bars the
way with its clumsy inalterable polysyllables and the monotonous sing-song
of its inflexions. On the other hand, among a hundred ways of
saying a thing, there are more than ninety that a care for euphony may
reasonably forbid. All who have consciously practised the art
of writing know what endless and painful vigilance is needed for the
avoidance of the unfit or untuneful phrase, how the meaning must be
tossed from expression to expression, mutilated and deceived, ere it
can find rest in words. The stupid accidental recurrence of a
single broad vowel; the cumbrous repetition of a particle; the emphatic
phrase for which no emphatic place can be found without disorganising
the structure of the period; the pert intrusion on a solemn thought
of a flight of short syllables, twittering like a flock of sparrows;
or that vicious trick of sentences whereby each, unmindful of its position
and duties, tends to imitate the deformities of its predecessor;—these
are a select few of the difficulties that the nature of language and
of man conspire to put upon the writer. He is well served by his
mind and ear if he can win past all such traps and ambuscades, robbed
of only a little of his treasure, indemnified by the careless generosity
of his spoilers, and still singing.</p>
<p>Besides their chime in the ear, and the images that they put before
the mind’s eye, words have, for their last and greatest possession,
a meaning. They carry messages and suggestions that, in the effect
wrought, elude all the senses equally. For the sake of this, their
prime office, the rest is many times forgotten or scorned, the tune
is disordered and havoc played with the lineaments of the picture, because
without these the word can still do its business. The refutation
of those critics who, in their analysis of the power of literature,
make much of music and picture, is contained in the most moving passages
that have found utterance from man. Consider the intensity of
a saying like that of St. Paul:- “For I am persuaded, that neither
death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things
present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature,
shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ
Jesus our Lord.”</p>
<p>Do these verses draw their power from a skilful arrangement of vowel
and consonant? But they are quoted from a translation, and can
be translated otherwise, well or ill or indifferently, without losing
more than a little of their virtue. Do they impress the eye by
opening before it a prospect of vast extent, peopled by vague shapes?
On the contrary, the visual embodiment of the ideas suggested kills
the sense of the passage, by lowering the cope of the starry heavens
to the measure of a poplar-tree. Death and life, height and depth,
are conceived by the apostle, and creation thrown in like a trinket,
only that they may lend emphasis to the denial that is the soul of his
purpose. Other arts can affirm, or seem to affirm, with all due
wealth of circumstance and detail; they can heighten their affirmation
by the modesty of reserve, the surprises of a studied brevity, and the
erasure of all impertinence; literature alone can deny, and honour the
denial with the last resources of a power that has the universe for
its treasury. It is this negative capability of words, their privative
force, whereby they can impress the minds with a sense of “vacuity,
darkness, solitude, and silence,” that Burke celebrates in the
fine treatise of his younger days. In such a phrase as “the
angel of the Lord” language mocks the positive rivalry of the
pictorial art, which can offer only the poor pretence of an equivalent
in a young man painted with wings. But the difference between
the two arts is even better marked in the matter of negative suggestion;
it is instanced by Burke from the noble passage where Virgil describes
the descent of AEneas and the Sibyl to the shades of the nether world.
Here are amassed all “the images of a tremendous dignity”
that the poet could forge from the sublime of denial. The two
most famous lines are a procession of negatives:-</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>Ibant obscuri sola sub nocte per umbram,<br />Perque domos Ditis
vacuas et inania regna.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>Through hollow kingdoms, emptied of the day,<br />And dim, deserted
courts where Dis bears sway,<br />Night-foundered, and uncertain of
the path,<br />Darkling they took their solitary way.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>Here is the secret of some of the cardinal effects of literature;
strong epithets like “lonely,” “supreme,” “invisible,”
“eternal,” “inexorable,” with the substantives
that belong to them, borrow their force from the vastness of what they
deny. And not these alone, but many other words, less indebted
to logic for the magnificence of reach that it can lend, bring before
the mind no picture, but a dim emotional framework. Such words
as “ominous,” “fantastic,” “attenuated,”
“bewildered,” “justification,” are atmospheric
rather than pictorial; they infect the soul with the passion-laden air
that rises from humanity. It is precisely in his dealings with
words like these, “heated originally by the breath of others,”
that a poet’s fine sense and knowledge most avail him. The
company a word has kept, its history, faculties, and predilections,
endear or discommend it to his instinct. How hardly will poetry
consent to employ such words as “congratulation” or “philanthropist,”—words
of good origin, but tainted by long immersion in fraudulent rejoicings
and pallid, comfortable, theoretic loves. How eagerly will the
poetic imagination seize on a word like “control,” which
gives scope by its very vagueness, and is fettered by no partiality
of association. All words, the weak and the strong, the definite
and the vague, have their offices to perform in language, but the loftiest
purposes of poetry are seldom served by those explicit hard words which,
like tiresome explanatory persons, say all that they mean. Only
in the focus and centre of man’s knowledge is there place for
the hammer-blows of affirmation, the rest is a flickering world of hints
and half-lights, echoes and suggestions, to be come at in the dusk or
not at all.</p>
<p>The combination of these powers in words, of song and image and meaning,
has given us the supreme passages of our romantic poetry. In Shakespeare’s
work, especially, the union of vivid definite presentment with immense
reach of metaphysical suggestion seems to intertwine the roots of the
universe with the particular fact; tempting the mind to explore that
other side of the idea presented to it, the side turned away from it,
and held by something behind.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>It will have blood; they say blood win have blood:<br />Stones have
been known to move and trees to speak;<br />Augurs and understood relations
have<br />By maggot-pies and choughs and rooks brought forth<br />The
secret’st man of blood.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>This meeting of concrete and abstract, of sense and thought, keeps
the eye travelling along the utmost skyline of speculation, where the
heavens are interfused with the earth. In short, the third and
greatest virtue of words is no other than the virtue that belongs to
the weapons of thought,—a deep, wide, questioning thought that
discovers analogies and pierces behind things to a half-perceived unity
of law and essence. In the employ of keen insight, high feeling,
and deep thinking, language comes by its own; the prettinesses that
may be imposed on a passive material are as nothing to the splendour
and grace that transfigure even the meanest instrument when it is wielded
by the energy of thinking purpose. The contempt that is cast,
by the vulgar phrase, on “mere words” bears witness to the
rarity of this serious consummation. Yet by words the world was
shaped out of chaos, by words the Christian religion was established
among mankind. Are these terrific engines fit play-things for
the idle humours of a sick child?</p>
<p>And now it begins to be apparent that no adequate description of
the art of language can be drawn from the technical terminology of the
other arts, which, like proud debtors, would gladly pledge their substance
to repay an obligation that they cannot disclaim. Let one more
attempt to supply literature with a parallel be quoted from the works
of a writer on style, whose high merit it is that he never loses sight,
either in theory or in practice, of the fundamental conditions proper
to the craft of letters. Robert Louis Stevenson, pondering words
long and lovingly, was impressed by their crabbed individuality, and
sought to elucidate the laws of their arrangement by a reference to
the principles of architecture. “The sister arts,”
he says, “enjoy the use of a plastic and ductile material, like
the modeller’s clay; literature alone is condemned to work in
mosaic with finite and quite rigid words. You have seen those
blocks, dear to the nursery: this one a pillar, that a pediment, a third
a window or a vase. It is with blocks of just such arbitrary size
and figure that the literary architect is condemned to design the palace
of his art. Nor is this all; for since these blocks or words are
the acknowledged currency of our daily affairs, there are here possible
none of those suppressions by which other arts obtain relief, continuity,
and vigour: no hieroglyphic touch, no smoothed impasto, no inscrutable
shadow, as in painting; no blank wall, as in architecture; but every
word, phrase, sentence, and paragraph must move in a logical progression,
and convey a definite conventional import.”</p>
<p>It is an acute comparison, happily indicative of the morose angularity
that words offer to whoso handles them, admirably insistent on the chief
of the incommodities imposed upon the writer, the necessity, at all
times and at all costs, to mean something. The boon of the recurring
monotonous expanse, that an apprentice may fill, the breathing-space
of restful mechanical repetition, are denied to the writer, who must
needs shoulder the hod himself, and lay on the mortar, in ever varying
patterns, with his own trowel. This is indeed the ordeal of the
master, the canker-worm of the penny-a-liner, who, poor fellow, means
nothing, and spends his life in the vain effort to get words to do the
same. But if in this respect architecture and literature are confessed
to differ, there remains the likeness that Mr. Stevenson detects in
the building materials of the two arts, those blocks of “arbitrary
size and figure; finite and quite rigid.” There is truth
enough in the comparison to make it illuminative, but he would be a
rash dialectician who should attempt to draw from it, by way of inference,
a philosophy of letters. Words are piled on words, and bricks
on bricks, but of the two you are invited to think words the more intractable.
Truly, it was a man of letters who said it, avenging himself on his
profession for the never-ending toil it imposed, by miscalling it, with
grim pleasantry, the architecture of the nursery. Finite and quite
rigid words are not, in any sense that holds good of bricks. They
move and change, they wax and wane, they wither and burgeon; from age
to age, from place to place, from mouth to mouth, they are never at
a stay. They take on colour, intensity, and vivacity from the
infection of neighbourhood; the same word is of several shapes and diverse
imports in one and the same sentence; they depend on the building that
they compose for the very chemistry of the stuff that composes them.
The same epithet is used in the phrases “a fine day” and
“fine irony,” in “fair trade” and “a fair
goddess.” Were different symbols to be invented for these
sundry meanings the art of literature would perish. For words
carry with them all the meanings they have worn, and the writer shall
be judged by those that he selects for prominence in the train of his
thought. A slight technical implication, a faint tinge of archaism,
in the common turn of speech that you employ, and in a moment you have
shaken off the mob that scours the rutted highway, and are addressing
a select audience of ticket-holders with closed doors. A single
natural phrase of peasant speech, a direct physical sense given to a
word that genteel parlance authorises readily enough in its metaphorical
sense, and at a touch you have blown the roof off the drawing-room of
the villa, and have set its obscure inhabitants wriggling in the unaccustomed
sun. In choosing a sense for your words you choose also an audience
for them.</p>
<p>To one word, then, there are many meanings, according as it falls
in the sentence, according as its successive ties and associations are
broken or renewed. And here, seeing that the stupidest of all
possible meanings is very commonly the slang meaning, it will be well
to treat briefly of slang. For slang, in the looser acceptation
of the term, is of two kinds, differing, and indeed diametrically opposite,
in origin and worth. Sometimes it is the technical diction that
has perforce been coined to name the operations, incidents, and habits
of some way of life that society despises or deliberately elects to
disregard. This sort of slang, which often invents names for what
would otherwise go nameless, is vivid, accurate, and necessary, an addition
of wealth to the world’s dictionaries and of compass to the world’s
range of thought. Society, mistily conscious of the sympathy that
lightens in any habitual name, seems to have become aware, by one of
those wonderful processes of chary instinct which serve the great, vulnerable,
timid organism in lieu of a brain, that to accept of the pickpocket
his names for the mysteries of his trade is to accept also a new moral
stand-point and outlook on the question of property. For this
reason, and by no special masonic precautions of his own, the pickpocket
is allowed to keep the admirable devices of his nomenclature for the
familiar uses of himself and his mates, until a Villon arrives to prove
that this language, too, was awaiting the advent of its bully and master.
In the meantime, what directness and modest sufficiency of utterance
distinguishes the dock compared with the fumbling prolixity of the old
gentleman on the bench! It is the trite story,—romanticism
forced to plead at the bar of classicism fallen into its dotage, Keats
judged by <i>Blackwood</i>, Wordsworth exciting the pained astonishment
of Miss Anna Seward. Accuser and accused alike recognise that
a question of diction is part of the issue between them; hence the picturesque
confession of the culprit, made in proud humility, that he “clicked
a red ’un” must needs be interpreted, to save the good faith
of the court, into the vaguer and more general speech of the classic
convention. Those who dislike to have their watches stolen find
that the poorest language of common life will serve their simple turn,
without the rich technical additions of a vocabulary that has grown
around an art. They can abide no rendering of the fact that does
not harp incessantly on the disapproval of watch-owners. They
carry their point of morals at the cost of foregoing all glitter and
finish in the matter of expression.</p>
<p>This sort of slang, therefore, technical in origin, the natural efflorescence
of highly cultivated agilities of brain, and hand, and eye, is worthy
of all commendation. But there is another kind that goes under
the name of slang, the offspring rather of mental sloth, and current
chiefly among those idle, jocular classes to whom all art is a bugbear
and a puzzle. There is a public for every one; the pottle-headed
lout who in a moment of exuberance strikes on a new sordid metaphor
for any incident in the beaten round of drunkenness, lubricity, and
debt, can set his fancy rolling through the music-halls, and thence
into the street, secure of applause and a numerous sodden discipleship.
Of the same lazy stamp, albeit more amiable in effect, are the thought-saying
contrivances whereby one word is retained to do the work of many.
For the language of social intercourse ease is the first requisite;
the average talker, who would be hard put to it if he were called on
to describe or to define, must constantly be furnished with the materials
of emphasis, wherewith to drive home his likes and dislikes. Why
should he alienate himself from the sympathy of his fellows by affecting
a singularity in the expression of his emotions? What he craves
is not accuracy, but immediacy of expression, lest the tide of talk
should flow past him, leaving him engaged in a belated analysis.
Thus the word of the day is on all lips, and what was “vastly
fine” last century is “awfully jolly” now; the meaning
is the same, the expression equally inappropriate. Oaths have
their brief periods of ascendency, and philology can boast its fashion-plates.
The tyrant Fashion, who wields for whip the fear of solitude, is shepherd
to the flock of common talkers, as they run hither and thither pursuing,
not self-expression, the prize of letters, but unanimity and self-obliteration,
the marks of good breeding. Like those famous modern poets who
are censured by the author of <i>Paradise Lost</i>, the talkers of slang
are “carried away by custom, to express many things otherwise,
and for the most part worse than else they would have exprest them.”
The poverty of their vocabulary makes appeal to the brotherly sympathy
of a partial and like-minded auditor, who can fill out their paltry
conventional sketches from his own experience of the same events.
Within the limits of a single school, or workshop, or social circle,
slang may serve; just as, between friends, silence may do the work of
talk. There are few families, or groups of familiars, that have
not some small coinage of this token-money, issued and accepted by affection,
passing current only within those narrow and privileged boundaries.
This wealth is of no avail to the travelling mind, save as a memorial
of home, nor is its material such “as, buried once, men want dug
up again.” A few happy words and phrases, promoted, for
some accidental fitness, to the wider world of letters, are all that
reach posterity; the rest pass into oblivion with the other perishables
of the age.</p>
<p>A profusion of words used in an ephemeral slang sense is evidence,
then, that the writer addresses himself merely to the uneducated and
thoughtless of his own day; the revival of bygone meanings, on the other
hand, and an archaic turn given to language is the mark rather of authors
who are ambitious of a hearing from more than one age. The accretions
of time bring round a word many reputable meanings, of which the oldest
is like to be the deepest in grain. It is a counsel of perfection—some
will say, of vainglorious pedantry—but that shaft flies furthest
which is drawn to the head, and he who desires to be understood in the
twenty-fourth century will not be careless of the meanings that his
words inherit from the fourteenth. To know them is of service,
if only for the piquancy of avoiding them. But many times they
cannot wisely be avoided, and the auspices under which a word began
its career when first it was imported from the French or Latin overshadow
it and haunt it to the end.</p>
<p>Popular modern usage will often rob common words, like “nice,”
“quaint,” or “silly,” of all flavour of their
origin, as if it were of no moment to remember that these three words,
at the outset of their history, bore the older senses of “ignorant,”
“noted,” and “blessed.” It may be granted
that any attempt to return to these older senses, regardless of later
implications, is stark pedantry; but a delicate writer will play shyly
with the primitive significance in passing, approaching it and circling
it, taking it as a point of reference or departure. The early
faith of Christianity, its beautiful cult of childhood, and its appeal
to unlearned simplicity, have left their mark on the meaning of “silly”;
the history of the word is contained in that cry of St. Augustine, <i>Indocti
surgunt et rapiunt</i> <i>coelum</i>, or in the fervent sentence of
the author of the <i>Imitation, Oportet fieri stultum</i>. And
if there is a later silliness, altogether unblest, the skilful artificer
of words, while accepting this last extension, will show himself conscious
of his paradox. So also he will shun the grossness that employs
the epithet “quaint” to put upon subtlety and the devices
of a studied workmanship an imputation of eccentricity; or, if he falls
in with the populace in this regard, he will be careful to justify his
innuendo. The slipshod use of “nice” to connote any
sort of pleasurable emotion he will take care, in his writings at least,
utterly to abhor. From the daintiness of elegance to the arrogant
disgust of folly the word carries meanings numerous and diverse enough;
it must not be cruelly burdened with all the laudatory occasions of
an undiscriminating egotism.</p>
<p>It would be easy to cite a hundred other words like these, saved
only by their nobler uses in literature from ultimate defacement.
The higher standard imposed upon the written word tends to raise and
purify speech also, and since talkers owe the same debt to writers of
prose that these, for their part, owe to poets, it is the poets who
must be accounted chief protectors, in the last resort, of our common
inheritance. Every page of the works of that great exemplar of
diction, Milton, is crowded with examples of felicitous and exquisite
meaning given to the infallible word. Sometimes he accepts the
secondary and more usual meaning of a word only to enrich it by the
interweaving of the primary and etymological meaning. Thus the
seraph Abdiel, in the passage that narrates his offer of combat to Satan,
is said to “explore” his own undaunted heart, and there
is no sense of “explore” that does not heighten the description
and help the thought. Thus again, when the poet describes those</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>Eremites and friars,<br />White, Black, and Gray, with all their
trumpery,</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>who inhabit, or are doomed to inhabit, the Paradise of Fools, he
seems to invite the curious reader to recall the derivation of “trumpery,”
and so supplement the idea of worthlessness with that other idea, equally
grateful to the author, of deceit. The strength that extracts
this multiplex resonance of meaning from a single note is matched by
the grace that gives to Latin words like “secure,” “arrive,”
“obsequious,” “redound,” “infest,”
and “solemn” the fine precision of intent that art can borrow
from scholarship.</p>
<p>Such an exactitude is consistent with vital change; Milton himself
is bold to write “stood praying” for “continued kneeling
in prayer,” and deft to transfer the application of “schism”
from the rent garment of the Church to those necessary “dissections
made in the quarry and in the timber ere the house of God can be built.”
Words may safely veer to every wind that blows, so they keep within
hail of their cardinal meanings, and drift not beyond the scope of their
central employ, but when once they lose hold of that, then, indeed,
the anchor has begun to drag, and the beach-comber may expect his harvest.</p>
<p>Fixity in the midst of change, fluctuation at the heart of sameness,
such is the estate of language. According as they endeavour to
reduce letters to some large haven and abiding-place of civility, or
prefer to throw in their lot with the centrifugal tendency and ride
on the flying crest of change, are writers dubbed Classic or Romantic.
The Romantics are individualist, anarchic; the strains of their passionate
incantation raise no cities to confront the wilderness in guarded symmetry,
but rather bring the stars shooting from their spheres, and draw wild
things captive to a voice. To them Society and Law seem dull phantoms,
by the light cast from a flaming soul. They dwell apart, and torture
their lives in the effort to attain to self-expression. All means
and modes offered them by language they seize on greedily, and shape
them to this one end; they ransack the vocabulary of new sciences, and
appropriate or invent strange jargons. They furbish up old words
or weld together new indifferently, that they may possess the machinery
of their speech and not be possessed by it. They are at odds with
the idiom of their country in that it serves the common need, and hunt
it through all its metamorphoses to subject it to their private will.
Heretics by profession, they are everywhere opposed to the party of
the Classics, who move by slower ways to ends less personal, but in
no wise easier of attainment. The magnanimity of the Classic ideal
has had scant justice done to it by modern criticism. To make
literature the crowning symbol of a world-wide civilisation; to roof
in the ages, and unite the elect of all time in the courtesy of one
shining assembly, paying duty to one unquestioned code; to undo the
work of Babel, and knit together in a single community the scattered
efforts of mankind towards order and reason;—this was surely an
aim worthy of labour and sacrifice. Both have been freely given,
and the end is yet to seek. The self-assertion of the recusants
has found eulogists in plenty, but who has celebrated the self-denial
that was thrown away on this other task, which is farther from fulfilment
now than it was when the scholars of the Renaissance gave up their patriotism
and the tongue of their childhood in the name of fellow-citizenship
with the ancients and the oecumenical authority of letters? Scholars,
grammarians, wits, and poets were content to bury the lustre of their
wisdom and the hard-won fruits of their toil in the winding-sheet of
a dead language, that they might be numbered with the family of Cicero,
and added to the pious train of Virgil. It was a noble illusion,
doomed to failure, the versatile genius of language cried out against
the monotony of their Utopia, and the crowds who were to people the
unbuilded city of their dreams went straying after the feathered chiefs
of the rebels, who, when the fulness of time was come, themselves received
apotheosis and the honours of a new motley pantheon. The tomb
of that great vision bears for epitaph the ironical inscription which
defines a Classic poet as “a dead Romantic.”</p>
<p>In truth the Romantics are right, and the serenity of the classic
ideal is the serenity of paralysis and death. A universal agreement
in the use of words facilitates communication, but, so inextricably
is expression entangled with feeling, it leaves nothing to communicate.
Inanity dogs the footsteps of the classic tradition, which is everywhere
lackeyed, through a long decline, by the pallor of reflected glories.
Even the irresistible novelty of personal experience is dulled by being
cast in the old matrix, and the man who professes to find the whole
of himself in the Bible or in Shakespeare had as good not be.
He is a replica and a shadow, a foolish libel on his Creator, who, from
the beginning of time, was never guilty of tautology. This is
the error of the classical creed, to imagine that in a fleeting world,
where the quickest eye can never see the same thing twice, and a deed
once done can never be repeated, language alone should be capable of
fixity and finality. Nature avenges herself on those who would
thus make her prisoner, their truths degenerate to truisms, and feeling
dies in the ice-palaces that they build to house it. In their
search for permanence they become unreal, abstract, didactic, lovers
of generalisation, cherishers of the dry bones of life; their art is
transformed into a science, their expression into an academic terminology.
Immutability is their ideal, and they find it in the arms of death.
Words must change to live, and a word once fixed becomes useless for
the purposes of art. Whosoever would make acquaintance with the
goal towards which the classic practice tends, should seek it in the
vocabulary of the Sciences. There words are fixed and dead, a
botanical collection of colourless, scentless, dried weeds, a <i>hortus
siccus</i> of proper names, each individual symbol poorly tethered to
some single object or idea. No wind blows through that garden,
and no sun shines on it, to discompose the melancholy workers at their
task of tying Latin labels on to withered sticks. Definition and
division are the watchwords of science, where art is all for composition
and creation. Not that the exact definable sense of a word is
of no value to the stylist; he profits by it as a painter profits by
a study of anatomy, or an architect by a knowledge of the strains and
stresses that may be put on his material. The exact logical definition
is often necessary for the structure of his thought and the ordering
of his severer argument. But often, too, it is the merest beginning;
when a word is once defined he overlays it with fresh associations and
buries it under new-found moral significances, which may belie the definition
they conceal. This is the burden of Jeremy Bentham’s quarrel
with “question-begging appellatives.” A clear-sighted
and scrupulously veracious philosopher, abettor of the age of reason,
apostle of utility, god-father of the panopticon, and donor to the English
dictionary of such unimpassioned vocables as “codification”
and “international,” Bentham would have been glad to purify
the language by purging it of those “affections of the soul”
wherein Burke had found its highest glory. Yet in censuring the
ordinary political usage of such a word as “innovation,”
it was hardly prejudice in general that he attacked, but the particular
and deep-seated prejudice against novelty. The surprising vivacity
of many of his own figures,—although he had the courage of his
convictions, and laboured, throughout the course of a long life, to
desiccate his style,—bears witness to a natural skill in the use
of loaded weapons. He will pack his text with grave argument on
matters ecclesiastical, and indulge himself and literature, in the notes
with a pleasant description of the flesh and the spirit playing leap-frog,
now one up, now the other, around the holy precincts of the Church.
Lapses like these show him far enough from his own ideal of a geometric
fixity in the use of words. The claim of reason and logic to enslave
language has a more modern advocate in the philosopher who denies all
utility to a word while it retains traces of its primary sensuous employ.
The tickling of the senses, the raising of the passions, these things
do indeed interfere with the arid business of definition. None
the less they are the life’s breath of literature, and he is a
poor stylist who cannot beg half-a-dozen questions in a single epithet,
or state the conclusion he would fain avoid in terms that startle the
senses into clamorous revolt.</p>
<p>The two main processes of change in words are Distinction and Assimilation.
Endless fresh distinction, to match the infinite complexity of things,
is the concern of the writer, who spends all his skill on the endeavour
to cloth the delicacies of perception and thought with a neatly fitting
garment. So words grow and bifurcate, diverge and dwindle, until
one root has many branches. Grammarians tell how “royal”
and “regal” grew up by the side of “kingly,”
how “hospital,” “hospice,” “hostel”
and “hotel” have come by their several offices. The
inventor of the word “sensuous” gave to the English people
an opportunity of reconsidering those headstrong moral preoccupations
which had already ruined the meaning of “sensual” for the
gentler uses of a poet. Not only the Puritan spirit, but every
special bias or interest of man seizes on words to appropriate them
to itself. Practical men of business transfer such words as “debenture”
or “commodity” from debt or comfort in general to the palpable
concrete symbols of debt or comfort; and in like manlier doctors, soldiers,
lawyers, shipmen,—all whose interest and knowledge are centred
on some particular craft or profession, drag words from the general
store and adapt them to special uses. Such words are sometimes
reclaimed from their partial applications by the authority of men of
letters, and pass back into their wider meanings enhanced by a new element
of graphic association. Language never suffers by answering to
an intelligent demand; it is indebted not only to great authors, but
to all whom any special skill or taste has qualified to handle it.
The good writer may be one who disclaims all literary pretension, but
there he is, at work among words,—binding the vagabond or liberating
the prisoner, exalting the humble or abashing the presumptuous, incessantly
alert to amend their implications, break their lazy habits, and help
them to refinement or scope or decision. He educates words, for
he knows that they are alive.</p>
<p>Compare now the case of the ruder multitude. In the regard
of literature, as a great critic long ago remarked, “all are the
multitude; only they differ in clothes, not in judgment or understanding,”
and the poorest talkers do not inhabit the slums. Wherever thought
and taste have fallen to be menials, there the vulgar dwell. How
should they gain mastery over language? They are introduced to
a vocabulary of some hundred thousand words, which quiver through a
million of meanings; the wealth is theirs for the taking, and they are
encouraged to be spendthrift by the very excess of what they inherit.
The resources of the tongue they speak are subtler and more various
than ever their ideas can put to use. So begins the process of
assimilation, the edge put upon words by the craftsman is blunted by
the rough treatment of the confident booby, who is well pleased when
out of many highly-tempered swords he has manufactured a single clumsy
coulter. A dozen expressions to serve one slovenly meaning inflate
him with the sense of luxury and pomp. “Vast,” “huge,”
“immense,” “gigantic,” “enormous,”
“tremendous,” “portentous,” and such-like groups
of words, lose all their variety of sense in a barren uniformity of
low employ. The reign of this democracy annuls differences of
status, and insults over differences of ability or disposition.
Thus do synonyms, or many words ill applied to one purpose, begin to
flourish, and, for a last indignity, dictionaries of synonyms.</p>
<p>Let the truth be said outright: there are no synonyms, and the same
statement can never be repeated in a changed form of words. Where
the ignorance of one writer has introduced an unnecessary word into
the language, to fill a place already occupied, the quicker apprehension
of others will fasten upon it, drag it apart from its fellows, and find
new work for it to do. Where a dull eye sees nothing but sameness,
the trained faculty of observation will discern a hundred differences
worthy of scrupulous expression. The old foresters had different
names for a buck during each successive year of its life, distinguishing
the fawn from the pricket, the pricket from the sore, and so forth,
as its age increased. Thus it is also in that illimitable but
not trackless forest of moral distinctions. Language halts far
behind the truth of things, and only a drowsy perception can fail to
devise a use for some new implement of description. Every strange
word that makes its way into a language spins for itself a web of usage
and circumstance, relating itself from whatsoever centre to fresh points
in the circumference. No two words ever coincide throughout their
whole extent. If sometimes good writers are found adding epithet
to epithet for the same quality, and name to name for the same thing,
it is because they despair of capturing their meaning at a venture,
and so practise to get near it by a maze of approximations. Or,
it may be, the generous breadth of their purpose scorns the minuter
differences of related terms, and includes all of one affinity, fearing
only lest they be found too few and too weak to cover the ground effectively.
Of this sort are the so-called synonyms of the Prayer-Book, wherein
we “acknowledge and confess” the sins we are forbidden to
“dissemble or cloke;” and the bead-roll of the lawyer, who
huddles together “give, devise, and bequeath,” lest the
cunning of litigants should evade any single verb. The works of
the poets yield still better instances. When Milton praises the
<i>Virtuous Young Lady</i> of his sonnet in that the spleen of her detractors
moves her only to “pity and ruth,” it is not for the idle
filling of the line that he joins the second of these nouns to the first.
Rather he is careful to enlarge and intensify his meaning by drawing
on the stores of two nations, the one civilised, the other barbarous;
and ruth is a quality as much more instinctive and elemental than pity
as pitilessness is keener, harder, and more deliberate than the inborn
savagery of ruthlessness.</p>
<p>It is not chiefly, however, for the purposes of this accumulated
and varied emphasis that the need of synonyms is felt. There is
no more curious problem in the philosophy of style than that afforded
by the stubborn reluctance of writers, the good as well as the bad,
to repeat a word or phrase. When the thing is, they may be willing
to abide by the old rule and say the word, but when the thing repeats
itself they will seldom allow the word to follow suit. A kind
of interdict, not removed until the memory of the first occurrence has
faded, lies on a once used word. The causes of this anxiety for
a varied expression are manifold. Where there is merely a column
to fill, poverty of thought drives the hackney author into an illicit
fulness, until the trick of verbiage passes from his practice into his
creed, and makes him the dupe of his own puppets. A commonplace
book, a dictionary of synonyms, and another of phrase and fable equip
him for his task; if he be called upon to marshal his ideas on the question
whether oysters breed typhoid, he will acquit himself voluminously,
with only one allusion (it is a point of pride) to the oyster by name.
He will compare the succulent bivalve to Pandora’s box, and lament
that it should harbour one of the direst of ills that flesh is heir
to. He will find a paradox and an epigram in the notion that the
darling of Apicius should suffer neglect under the frowns of AEsculapius.
Question, hypothesis, lamentation, and platitude dance their allotted
round and fill the ordained space, while Ignorance masquerades in the
garb of criticism, and Folly proffers her ancient epilogue of chastened
hope. When all is said, nothing is said; and Montaigne’s
<i>Que sçais-je</i>, besides being briefer and wittier, was infinitely
more informing.</p>
<p>But we dwell too long with disease; the writer nourished on thought,
whose nerves are braced and his loins girt to struggle with a real meaning,
is not subject to these tympanies. He feels no idolatrous dread
of repetition when the theme requires, it, and is urged by no necessity
of concealing real identity under a show of change. Nevertheless
he, too, is hedged about by conditions that compel him, now and again,
to resort to what seems a synonym. The chief of these is the indispensable
law of euphony, which governs the sequence not only of words, but also
of phrases. In proportion as a phrase is memorable, the words
that compose it become mutually adhesive, losing for a time something
of their individual scope, bringing with them, if they be torn away
too quickly, some cumbrous fragments of their recent association.
That he may avoid this, a sensitive writer is often put to his shifts,
and extorts, if he be fortunate, a triumph from the accident of his
encumbrance. By a slight stress laid on the difference of usage
the unshapeliness may be done away with, and a new grace found where
none was sought. Addison and Landor accuse Milton, with reason,
of too great a fondness for the pun, yet surely there is something to
please the mind, as well as the ear, in the description of the heavenly
judgment,</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>That brought into this world a world of woe.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>Where words are not fitted with a single hard definition, rigidly
observed, all repetition is a kind of delicate punning, bringing slight
differences of application into clear relief. The practice has
its dangers for the weak-minded lover of ornament, yet even so it may
be preferable to the flat stupidity of one identical intention for a
word or phrase in twenty several contexts. For the law of incessant
change is not so much a counsel of perfection to be held up before the
apprentice, as a fundamental condition of all writing whatsoever; if
the change be not ordered by art it will order itself in default of
art. The same statement can never be repeated even in the same
form of words, and it is not the old question that is propounded at
the third time of asking. Repetition, that is to say, is the strongest
generator of emphasis known to language. Take the exquisite repetitions
in these few lines:-</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>Bitter constraint and sad occasion dear<br />Compels me to disturb
your season due;<br />For Lycidas is dead, dead ere his prime,<br />Young
Lycidas, and hath not left his peer.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>Here the tenderness of affection returns again to the loved name,
and the grief of the mourner repeats the word “dead.”
But this monotony of sorrow is the least part of the effect, which lies
rather in the prominence given by either repetition to the most moving
circumstance of all—the youthfulness of the dead poet. The
attention of the discursive intellect, impatient of reiteration, is
concentrated on the idea which these repeated and exhausted words throw
into relief. Rhetoric is content to borrow force from simpler
methods; a good orator will often bring his hammer down, at the end
of successive periods, on the same phrase; and the mirthless refrain
of a comic song, or the catchword of a buffoon, will raise laughter
at last by its brazen importunity. Some modem writers, admiring
the easy power of the device, have indulged themselves with too free
a use of it; Matthew Arnold particularly, in his prose essays, falls
to crying his text like a hawker,</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>Beating it in upon our weary brains,<br />As tho’ it were the
burden of a song,</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>clattering upon the iron of the Philistine giant in the effort to
bring him to reason. These are the ostentatious violences of a
missionary, who would fain save his enemy alive, where a grimmer purpose
is glad to employ a more silent weapon and strike but once. The
callousness of a thick-witted auditory lays the need for coarse method
on the gentlest soul resolved to stir them. But he whose message
is for minds attuned and tempered will beware of needless reiteration,
as of the noisiest way of emphasis. Is the same word wanted again,
he will examine carefully whether the altered incidence does not justify
and require an altered term, which the world is quick to call a synonym.
The right dictionary of synonyms would give the context of each variant
in the usage of the best authors. To enumerate all the names applied
by Milton to the hero of <i>Paradise Lost</i>, without reference to
the passages in which they occur, would be a foolish labour; with such
reference, the task is made a sovereign lesson in style. At Hell
gates, where he dallies in speech with his leman Sin to gain a passage
from the lower World, Satan is “the subtle Fiend,” in the
garden of Paradise he is “the Tempter” and “the Enemy
of Mankind,” putting his fraud upon Eve he is the “wily
Adder,” leading her in full course to the tree he is “the
dire Snake,” springing to his natural height before the astonished
gaze of the cherubs he is “the grisly King.” Every
fresh designation elaborates his character and history, emphasises the
situation, and saves a sentence. So it is with all variable appellations
of concrete objects; and even in the stricter and more conventional
region of abstract ideas the same law runs. Let a word be changed
or repeated, it brings in either case its contribution of emphasis,
and must be carefully chosen for the part it is to play, lest it should
upset the business of the piece by irrelevant clownage in the midst
of high matter, saying more or less than is set down for it in the author’s
purpose.</p>
<p>The chameleon quality of language may claim yet another illustration.
Of origins we know nothing certainly, nor how words came by their meanings
in the remote beginning, when speech, like the barnacle-goose of the
herbalist, was suspended over an expectant world, ripening on a tree.
But this we know, that language in its mature state is fed and fattened
on metaphor. Figure is not a late device of the rhetorician, but
the earliest principle of change in language. The whole process
of speech is a long series of exhilarating discoveries, whereby words,
freed from the swaddling bands of their nativity, are found capable
of new relations and a wider metaphorical employ. Then, with the
growth of exact knowledge, the straggling associations that attended
the word on its travels are straitened and confined, its meaning is
settled, adjusted, and balanced, that it may bear its part in the scrupulous
deposition of truth. Many are the words that have run this double
course, liberated from their first homely offices and transformed by
poetry, reclaimed in a more abstract sense, and appropriated to a new
set of facts by science. Yet a third chance awaits them when the
poet, thirsty for novelty, passes by the old simple founts of figure
to draw metaphor from the latest technical applications of specialised
terms. Everywhere the intuition of poetry, impatient of the sturdy
philosophic cripple that lags so far behind, is busy in advance to find
likenesses not susceptible of scientific demonstration, to leap to comparisons
that satisfy the heart while they leave the colder intellect only half
convinced. When an elegant dilettante like Samuel Rogers is confronted
with the principle of gravitation he gives voice to science in verse:-</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>That very law which moulds a tear,<br />And bids it trickle from
its source,<br />That law preserves the earth a sphere,<br />And guides
the planets in their course.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>But a seer like Wordsworth will never be content to write tunes for
a text-book of physics, he boldly confounds the arbitrary limits of
matter and morals in one splendid apostrophe to Duty:-</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>Flowers laugh before thee on their beds;<br />And fragrance in thy
footing treads;<br />Thou dost preserve the stars from wrong;<br />And
the most ancient heavens, through thee, are fresh and strong.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>Poets, it is said, anticipate science; here in these four lines is
work for a thousand laboratories for a thousand years. But the
truth has been understated; every writer and every speaker works ahead
of science, expressing analogies and contrasts, likenesses and differences,
that will not abide the apparatus of proof. The world of perception
and will, of passion and belief, is an uncaptured virgin, airily deriding
from afar the calculated advances and practised modesty of the old bawd
Science; turning again to shower a benediction of unexpected caresses
on the most cavalier of her wooers, Poetry. This world, the child
of Sense and Faith, shy, wild, and provocative, for ever lures her lovers
to the chase, and the record of their hopes and conquests is contained
in the lover’s language, made up wholly of parable and figure
of speech. There is nothing under the sun nor beyond it that does
not concern man, and it is the unceasing effort of humanity, whether
by letters or by science, to bring “the commerce of the mind and
of things” to terms of nearer correspondence. But Literature,
ambitious to touch life on all its sides, distrusts the way of abstraction,
and can hardly be brought to abandon the point of view whence things
are seen in their immediate relation to the individual soul. This
kind of research is the work of letters; here are facts of human life
to be noted that are never like to be numerically tabulated, changes
and developments that defy all metrical standards to be traced and described.
The greater men of science have been cast in so generous a mould that
they have recognised the partial nature of their task; they have known
how to play with science as a pastime, and to win and wear her decorations
for a holiday favour. They have not emaciated the fulness of their
faculties in the name of certainty, nor cramped their humanity for the
promise of a future good. They have been the servants of Nature,
not the slaves of method. But the grammarian of the laboratory
is often the victim of his trade. He staggers forth from his workshop,
where prolonged concentration on a mechanical task, directed to a provisional
and doubtful goal, has dimmed his faculties; the glaring motley of the
world, bathed in sunlight, dazzles him; the questions, moral, political,
and personal, that his method has relegated to some future of larger
knowledge, crowd upon him, clamorous for solution, not to be denied,
insisting on a settlement to-day. He is forced to make a choice,
and may either forsake the divinity he serves, falling back, for the
practical and aesthetic conduct of life, on those common instincts of
sensuality which oscillate between the conventicle and the tavern as
the poles of duty and pleasure, or, more pathetically still, he may
attempt to bring the code of the observatory to bear immediately on
the vagaries of the untameable world, and suffer the pedant’s
disaster. A martyr to the good that is to be, he has voluntarily
maimed himself “for the kingdom of Heaven’s sake”—if,
perchance, the kingdom of Heaven might come by observation. The
enthusiasm of his self-denial shows itself in his unavailing struggle
to chain language also to the bare rock of ascertained fact. Metaphor,
the poet’s right-hand weapon, he despises; all that is tentative,
individual, struck off at the urging of a mood, he disclaims and suspects.
Yet the very rewards that science promises have their parallel in the
domain of letters. The discovery of likeness in the midst of difference,
and of difference in the midst of likeness, is the keenest pleasure
of the intellect; and literary expression, as has been said, is one
long series of such discoveries, each with its thrill of incommunicable
happiness, all unprecedented, and perhaps unverifiable by later experiment.
The finest instrument of these discoveries is metaphor, the spectroscope
of letters.</p>
<p>Enough has been said of change; it remains to speak of one more of
those illusions of fixity wherein writers seek exemption from the general
lot. Language, it has been shown, is to be fitted to thought;
and, further, there are no synonyms. What more natural conclusion
could be drawn by the enthusiasm of the artist than that there is some
kind of preordained harmony between words and things, whereby expression
and thought tally exactly, like the halves of a puzzle? This illusion,
called in France the doctrine of the <i>mot</i> <i>propre</i>, is a
will o’ the wisp which has kept many an artist dancing on its
trail. That there is one, and only one way of expressing one thing
has been the belief of other writers besides Gustave Flaubert, inspiriting
them to a desperate and fruitful industry. It is an amiable fancy,
like the dream of Michael Angelo, who loved to imagine that the statue
existed already in the block of marble, and had only to be stripped
of its superfluous wrappings, or like the indolent fallacy of those
economic soothsayers to whom Malthus brought rough awakening, that population
and the means of subsistence move side by side in harmonious progress.
But hunger does not imply food, and there may hover in the restless
heads of poets, as themselves testify -</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>One thought, one grace, one wonder, at the least,<br />Which into
words no virtue can digest.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>Matter and form are not so separable as the popular philosophy would
have them; indeed, the very antithesis between them is a cardinal instance
of how language reacts on thought, modifying and fixing a cloudy truth.
The idea pursues form not only that it may be known to others, but that
it may know itself, and the body in which it becomes incarnate is not
to be distinguished from the informing soul. It is recorded of
a famous Latin historian how he declared that he would have made Pompey
win the battle of Pharsalia had the effective turn of the sentence required
it. He may stand for the true type of the literary artist.
The business of letters, howsoever simple it may seem to those who think
truth-telling a gift of nature, is in reality two-fold, to find words
for a meaning, and to find a meaning for words. Now it is the
words that refuse to yield, and now the meaning, so that he who attempts
to wed them is at the same time altering his words to suit his meaning,
and modifying and shaping his meaning to satisfy the requirements of
his words. The humblest processes of thought have had their first
education from language long before they took shape in literature.
So subtle is the connexion between the two that it is equally possible
to call language the form given to the matter of thought, or, inverting
the application of the figure, to speak of thought as the formal principle
that shapes the raw material of language. It is not until the
two become one that they can be known for two. The idea to be
expressed is a kind of mutual recognition between thought and language,
which here meet and claim each other for the first time, just as in
the first glance exchanged by lovers, the unborn child opens its eyes
on the world, and pleads for life. But thought, although it may
indulge itself with the fancy of a predestined affiance, is not confined
to one mate, but roves free and is the father of many children.
A belief in the inevitable word is the last refuge of that stubborn
mechanical theory of the universe which has been slowly driven from
science, politics, and history. Amidst so much that is undulating,
it has pleased writers to imagine that truth persists and is provided
by heavenly munificence with an imperishable garb of language.
But this also is vanity, there is one end appointed alike to all, fact
goes the way of fiction, and what is known is no more perdurable than
what is made. Not words nor works, but only that which is formless
endures, the vitality that is another name for change, the breath that
fills and shatters the bubbles of good and evil, of beauty and deformity,
of truth and untruth.</p>
<p>No art is easy, least of all the art of letters. Apply the
musical analogy once more to the instrument whereon literature performs
its voluntaries. With a living keyboard of notes which are all
incessantly changing in value, so that what rang true under Dr. Johnson’s
hand may sound flat or sharp now, with a range of a myriad strings,
some falling mute and others being added from day to day, with numberless
permutations and combinations, each of which alters the tone and pitch
of the units that compose it, with fluid ideas that never have an outlined
existence until they have found their phrases and the improvisation
is complete, is it to be wondered at that the art of style is eternally
elusive, and that the attempt to reduce it to rule is the forlorn hope
of academic infatuation?</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>These difficulties and complexities of the instrument are, nevertheless,
the least part of the ordeal that is to be undergone by the writer.
The same musical note or phrase affects different ears in much the same
way; not so the word or group of words. The pure idea, let us
say, is translated into language by the literary composer; who is to
be responsible for the retranslation of the language into idea?
Here begins the story of the troubles and weaknesses that are imposed
upon literature by the necessity it lies under of addressing itself
to an audience, by its liability to anticipate the corruptions that
mar the understanding of the spoken or written word. A word is
the operative symbol of a relation between two minds, and is chosen
by the one not without regard to the quality of the effect actually
produced upon the other. Men must be spoken to in their accustomed
tongue, and persuaded that the unknown God proclaimed by the poet is
one whom aforetime they ignorantly worshipped. The relation of
great authors to the public may be compared to the war of the sexes,
a quiet watchful antagonism between two parties mutually indispensable
to each other, at one time veiling itself in endearments, at another
breaking out into open defiance. He who has a message to deliver
must wrestle with his fellows before he shall be permitted to ply them
with uncomfortable or unfamiliar truths. The public, like the
delicate Greek Narcissus, is sleepily enamoured of itself; and the name
of its only other perfect lover is Echo. Yet even great authors
must lay their account with the public, and it is instructive to observe
how different are the attitudes they have adopted, how uniform the disappointment
they have felt. Some, like Browning and Mr. Meredith in our own
day, trouble themselves little about the reception given to their work,
but are content to say on, until the few who care to listen have expounded
them to the many, and they are applauded, in the end, by a generation
whom they have trained to appreciate them. Yet this noble and
persevering indifference is none of their choice, and long years of
absolution from criticism must needs be paid for in faults of style.
“Writing for the stage,” Mr. Meredith himself has remarked,
“would be a corrective of a too-incrusted scholarly style into
which some great ones fall at times.” Denied such a corrective,
the great one is apt to sit alone and tease his meditations into strange
shapes, fortifying himself against obscurity and neglect with the reflection
that most of the words he uses are to be found, after all, in the dictionary.
It is not, however, from the secluded scholar that the sharpest cry
of pain is wrung by the indignities of his position, but rather from
genius in the act of earning a full meed of popular applause.
Both Shakespeare and Ben Jonson wrote for the stage, both were blown
by the favouring breath of their plebeian patrons into reputation and
a competence. Each of them passed through the thick of the fight,
and well knew that ugly corner where the artist is exposed to cross
fires, his own idea of masterly work on the one hand and the necessity
for pleasing the rabble on the other. When any man is awake to
the fact that the public is a vile patron, when he is conscious also
that his bread and his fame are in their gift—it is a stern passage
for his soul, a touchstone for the strength and gentleness of his spirit.
Jonson, whose splendid scorn took to itself lyric wings in the two great
Odes to Himself, sang high and aloof for a while, then the frenzy caught
him, and he flung away his lyre to gird himself for deeds of mischief
among nameless and noteless antagonists. Even Chapman, who, in
<i>The</i> <i>Tears of Peace</i>, compares “men’s refuse
ears” to those gates in ancient cities which were opened only
when the bodies of executed malefactors were to be cast away, who elsewhere
gives utterance, in round terms, to his belief that</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>No truth of excellence was ever seen<br />But bore the venom of the
vulgar’s spleen,</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>- even the violences of this great and haughty spirit must pale beside
the more desperate violences of the dramatist who commended his play
to the public in the famous line,</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>By God, ’tis good, and if you like’t, you may.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>This stormy passion of arrogant independence disturbs the serenity
of atmosphere necessary for creative art. A greater than Jonson
donned the suppliant’s robes, like Coriolanus, and with the inscrutable
honeyed smile about his lips begged for the “most sweet voices”
of the journeymen and gallants who thronged the Globe Theatre.
Only once does the wail of anguish escape him -</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>Alas! ’tis true, I have gone here and there,<br />And made
myself a motley to the view,<br />Gored mine own thoughts, sold cheap
what is most dear.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>And again -</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>Thence comes it that my name receives a brand,<br />And almost thence
my nature is subdued<br />To what it works in, like the dyer’s
hand,<br />Pity me then, and wish I were renewed.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>Modern vulgarity, speaking through the mouths of Shakesperian commentators,
is wont to interpret these lines as a protest against the contempt wherewith
Elizabethan society regarded the professions of playwright and actor.
We are asked to conceive that Shakespeare humbly desires the pity of
his bosom friend because he is not put on the same level of social estimation
with a brocaded gull or a prosperous stupid goldsmith of the Cheap.
No, it is a cry, from the depth of his nature, for forgiveness because
he has sacrificed a little on the altar of popularity. Jonson
would have boasted that he never made this sacrifice. But he lost
the calm of his temper and the clearness of his singing voice, he degraded
his magnanimity by allowing it to engage in street-brawls, and he endangered
the sanctuary of the inviolable soul.</p>
<p>At least these great artists of the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries
are agreed upon one thing, that the public, even in its most gracious
mood, makes an ill task-master for the man of letters. It is worth
the pains to ask why, and to attempt to show how much of an author’s
literary quality is involved in his attitude towards his audience.
Such an inquiry will take us, it is true, into bad company, and exhibit
the vicious, the fatuous, and the frivolous posturing to an admiring
crowd. But style is a property of all written and printed matter,
so that to track it to its causes and origins is a task wherein literary
criticism may profit by the humbler aid of anthropological research.</p>
<p>Least of all authors is the poet subject to the tyranny of his audience.
“Poetry and eloquence,” says John Stuart Mill, “are
both alike the expression or utterance of feeling. But if we may
be excused the antithesis, we should say that eloquence is heard, poetry
is overheard. Eloquence supposes an audience; the peculiarity
of poetry appears to us to lie in the poet’s utter unconsciousness
of a listener.” Poetry, according to this discerning criticism,
is an inspired soliloquy; the thoughts rise unforced and unchecked,
taking musical form in obedience only to the law of their being, giving
pleasure to an audience only as the mountain spring may chance to assuage
the thirst of a passing traveller. In lyric poetry, language,
from being a utensil, or a medium of traffic and barter, passes back
to its place among natural sounds; its affinity is with the wind among
the trees and the stream among the rocks; it is the cry of the heart,
as simple as the breath we draw, and as little ordered with a view to
applause. Yet speech grew up in society, and even in the most
ecstatic of its uses may flag for lack of understanding and response.
It were rash to say that the poets need no audience; the loneliest have
promised themselves a tardy recognition, and some among the greatest
came to their maturity in the warm atmosphere of a congenial society.
Indeed the ratification set upon merit by a living audience, fit though
few, is necessary for the development of the most humane and sympathetic
genius; and the memorable ages of literature, in Greece or Rome, in
France or England, have been the ages of a literary society. The
nursery of our greatest dramatists must be looked for, not, it is true,
in the transfigured bear-gardens of the Bankside, but in those enchanted
taverns, islanded and bastioned by the protective decree -</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p><i>Idiota, insulsus, tristis, turpis, abesto.</i></p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>The poet seems to be soliloquising because he is addressing himself,
with the most entire confidence, to a small company of his friends,
who may even, in unhappy seasons, prove to be the creatures of his imagination.
Real or imaginary, they are taken by him for his equals; he expects
from them a quick intelligence and a perfect sympathy, which may enable
him to despise all concealment. He never preaches to them, nor
scolds, nor enforces the obvious. Content that what he has spoken
he has spoken, he places a magnificent trust on a single expression.
He neither explains, nor falters, nor repents; he introduces his work
with no preface, and cumbers it with no notes. He will not lower
nor raise his voice for the sake of the profane and idle who may chance
to stumble across his entertainment. His living auditors, unsolicited
for the tribute of worship or an alms, find themselves conceived of
in the likeness of what he would have them to be, raised to a companion
pinnacle of friendship, and constituted peers and judges, if they will,
of his achievement. Sometimes they come late.</p>
<p>This blend of dignity and intimacy, of candour and self-respect,
is unintelligible to the vulgar, who understand by intimacy mutual concession
to a base ideal, and who are so accustomed to deal with masks, that
when they see a face they are shocked as by some grotesque. Now
a poet, like Montaigne’s naked philosopher, is all face; and the
bewilderment of his masked and muffled critics is the greater.
Wherever he attracts general attention he cannot but be misunderstood.
The generality of modern men and women who pretend to literature are
not hypocrites, or they might go near to divine him,—for hypocrisy,
though rooted in cowardice, demands for its flourishing a clear intellectual
atmosphere, a definite aim, and a certain detachment of the directing
mind. But they are habituated to trim themselves by the cloudy
mirror of opinion, and will mince and temporise, as if for an invisible
audience, even in their bedrooms. Their masks have, for the most
part, grown to their faces, so that, except in some rare animal paroxysm
of emotion, it is hardly themselves that they express. The apparition
of a poet disquiets them, for he clothes himself with the elements,
and apologises to no idols. His candour frightens them: they avert
their eyes from it; or they treat it as a licensed whim; or, with a
sudden gleam of insight, and apprehension of what this means for them
and theirs, they scream aloud for fear. A modern instance may
be found in the angry protestations launched against Rossetti’s
Sonnets, at the time of their first appearance, by a writer who has
since matched himself very exactly with an audience of his own kind.
A stranger freak of burgess criticism is everyday fare in the odd world
peopled by the biographers of Robert Burns. The nature of Burns,
one would think, was simplicity itself; it could hardly puzzle a ploughman,
and two sailors out of three would call him brother. But he lit
up the whole of that nature by his marvellous genius for expression,
and grave personages have been occupied ever since in discussing the
dualism of his character, and professing to find some dark mystery in
the existence of this, that, or the other trait—a love of pleasure,
a hatred of shams, a deep sense of religion. It is common human
nature, after all, that is the mystery, but they seem never to have
met with it, and treat it as if it were the poet’s eccentricity.
They are all agog to worship him, and when they have made an image of
him in their own likeness, and given it a tin-pot head that exactly
hits their taste, they break into noisy lamentation over the discovery
that the original was human, and had feet of clay. They deem “Mary
in Heaven” so admirable that they could find it in their hearts
to regret that she was ever on earth. This sort of admirers constantly
refuses to bear a part in any human relationship; they ask to be fawned
on, or trodden on, by the poet while he is in life; when he is dead
they make of him a candidate for godship, and heckle him. It is
a misfortune not wholly without its compensations that most great poets
are dead before they are popular.</p>
<p>If great and original literary artists—here grouped together
under the title of poets—will not enter into transactions with
their audience, there is no lack of authors who will. These are
not necessarily charlatans; they may have by nature a ready sympathy
with the grossness of the public taste, and thus take pleasure in studying
to gratify it. But man loses not a little of himself in crowds,
and some degradation there must be where the one adapts himself to the
many. The British public is not seen at its best when it is enjoying
a holiday in a foreign country, nor when it is making excursions into
the realm of imaginative literature: those who cater for it in these
matters must either study its tastes or share them. Many readers
bring the worst of themselves to a novel; they want lazy relaxation,
or support for their nonsense, or escape from their creditors, or a
free field for emotions that they dare not indulge in life. The
reward of an author who meets them half-way in these respects, who neither
puzzles nor distresses them, who asks nothing from them, but compliments
them on their great possessions and sends them away rejoicing, is a
full measure of acceptance, and editions unto seventy times seven.</p>
<p>The evils caused by the influence of the audience on the writer are
many. First of all comes a fault far enough removed from the characteristic
vices of the charlatan—to wit, sheer timidity and weakness.
There is a kind of stage-fright that seizes on a man when he takes pen
in hand to address an unknown body of hearers, no less than when he
stands up to deliver himself to a sea of expectant faces. This
is the true panic fear, that walks at mid-day, and unmans those whom
it visits. Hence come reservations, qualifications, verbosity,
and the see-saw of a wavering courage, which apes progress and purpose,
as soldiers mark time with their feet. The writing produced under
these auspices is of no greater moment than the incoherent loquacity
of a nervous patient. All self-expression is a challenge thrown
down to the world, to be taken up by whoso will; and the spirit of timidity,
when it touches a man, suborns him with the reminder that he holds his
life and goods by the sufferance of his fellows. Thereupon he
begins to doubt whether it is worth while to court a verdict of so grave
possibilities, or to risk offending a judge—whose customary geniality
is merely the outcome of a fixed habit of inattention. In doubt
whether to speak or keep silence, he takes a middle course, and while
purporting to speak for himself, is careful to lay stress only on the
points whereon all are agreed, to enlarge eloquently on the doubtfulness
of things, and to give to words the very least meaning that they will
carry. Such a procedure, which glides over essentials, and handles
truisms or trivialities with a fervour of conviction, has its functions
in practice. It will win for a politician the coveted and deserved
repute of a “safe” man—safe, even though the cause
perish. Pleaders and advocates are sometimes driven into it, because
to use vigorous, clean, crisp English in addressing an ordinary jury
or committee is like flourishing a sword in a drawing-room: it will
lose the case. Where the weakest are to be convinced speech must
stoop: a full consideration of the velleities and uncertainties, a little
bombast to elevate the feelings without committing the judgment, some
vague effusion of sentiment, an inapposite blandness, a meaningless
rodomontade—these are the by-ways to be travelled by the style
that is a willing slave to its audience. The like is true of those
documents—petitions, resolutions, congratulatory addresses, and
so forth—that are written to be signed by a multitude of names.
Public occasions of this kind, where all and sundry are to be satisfied,
have given rise to a new parliamentary dialect, which has nothing of
the freshness of individual emotion, is powerless to deal with realities,
and lacks all resonance, vitality, and nerve. There is no cure
for this, where the feelings and opinions of a crowd are to be expressed.
But where indecision is the ruling passion of the individual, he may
cease to write. Popularity was never yet the prize of those whose
only care is to avoid offence.</p>
<p>For hardier aspirants, the two main entrances to popular favour are
by the twin gates of laughter and tears. Pathos knits the soul
and braces the nerves, humour purges the eyesight and vivifies the sympathies;
the counterfeits of these qualities work the opposite effects.
It is comparatively easy to appeal to passive emotions, to play upon
the melting mood of a diffuse sensibility, or to encourage the narrow
mind to dispense a patron’s laughter from the vantage-ground of
its own small preconceptions. Our annual crop of sentimentalists
and mirth-makers supplies the reading public with food. Tragedy,
which brings the naked soul face to face with the austere terrors of
Fate, Comedy, which turns the light inward and dissipates the mists
of self-affection and self-esteem, have long since given way on the
public stage to the flattery of Melodrama, under many names. In
the books he reads and in the plays he sees the average man recognises
himself in the hero, and vociferates his approbation.</p>
<p>The sensibility that came into vogue during the eighteenth century
was of a finer grain than its modern counterpart. It studied delicacy,
and sought a cultivated enjoyment in evanescent shades of feeling, and
the fantasies of unsubstantial grief. The real Princess of Hans
Andersen’s story, who passed a miserable night because there was
a small bean concealed beneath the twenty eider-down beds on which she
slept, might stand for a type of the aristocracy of feeling that took
a pride in these ridiculous susceptibilities. The modern sentimentalist
works in a coarser material. That ancient, subtle, and treacherous
affinity among the emotions, whereby religious exaltation has before
now been made the ally of the unpurified passions, is parodied by him
in a simpler and more useful device. By alleging a moral purpose
he is enabled to gratify the prurience of his public and to raise them
in their own muddy conceit at one and the same time. The plea
serves well with those artless readers who have been accustomed to consider
the moral of a story as something separable from imagination, expression,
and style—a quality, it may be, inherent in the plot, or a kind
of appendix, exercising a retrospective power of jurisdiction and absolution
over the extravagances of the piece to which it is affixed. Let
virtue be rewarded, and they are content though it should never be vitally
imagined or portrayed. If their eyes were opened they might cry
with Brutus—“O miserable Virtue! Thou art but a phrase,
and I have followed thee as though thou wert a reality.”</p>
<p>It is in quite another kind, however, that the modern purveyor of
sentiment exercises his most characteristic talent. There are
certain real and deeply-rooted feelings, common to humanity, concerning
which, in their normal operation, a grave reticence is natural.
They are universal in their appeal, men would be ashamed not to feel
them, and it is no small part of the business of life to keep them under
strict control. Here is the sentimental hucksters most valued
opportunity. He tears these primary instincts from the wholesome
privacy that shelters them in life, and cries them up from his booth
in the market-place. The elemental forces of human life, which
beget shyness in children, and touch the spirits of the wise to solemn
acquiescence, awaken him to noisier declamation. He patronises
the stern laws of love and pity, hawking them like indulgences, cheapening
and commanding them like the medicines of a mountebank. The censure
of his critics he impudently meets by pointing to his wares: are not
some of the most sacred properties of humanity—sympathy with suffering,
family affection, filial devotion, and the rest—displayed upon
his stall? Not thus shall he evade the charges brought against
him. It is the sensual side of the tender emotions that he exploits
for the comfort of the million. All the intricacies which life
offers to the will and the intellect he lards and obliterates by the
timely effusion of tearful sentiment. His humanitarianism is a
more popular, as it is an easier, ideal than humanity—it asks
no expense of thought. There is a scanty public in England for
tragedy or for comedy: the characters and situations handled by the
sentimentalist might perchance furnish comedy with a theme; but he stilts
them for a tragic performance, and they tumble into watery bathos, where
a numerous public awaits them.</p>
<p>A similar degradation of the intellectual elements that are present
in all good literature is practised by those whose single aim is to
provoke laughter. In much of our so-called comic writing a superabundance
of boisterous animal spirits, restrained from more practical expression
by the ordinances of civil society, finds outlet and relief. The
grimaces and caperings of buffoonery, the gymnastics of the punster
and the parodist, the revels of pure nonsense may be, at their best,
a refreshment and delight, but they are not comedy, and have proved
in effect not a little hostile to the existence of comedy. The
prevalence of jokers, moreover, spoils the game of humour; the sputter
and sparkle of their made jokes interferes with that luminous contemplation
of the incongruities of life and the universe which is humour’s
essence. All that is ludicrous depends on some disproportion:
Comedy judges the actual world by contrasting it with an ideal of sound
sense, Humour reveals it in its true dimensions by turning on it the
light of imagination and poetry. The perception of these incongruities,
which are eternal, demands some expense of intellect; a cheaper amusement
may be enjoyed by him who is content to take his stand on his own habits
and prejudices and to laugh at all that does not square with them.
This was the method of the age which, in the abysmal profound of waggery,
engendered that portentous birth, the comic paper. Foreigners,
it is said, do not laugh at the wit of these journals, and no wonder,
for only a minute study of the customs and preoccupations of certain
sections of English society could enable them to understand the point
of view. From time to time one or another of the writers who are
called upon for their weekly tale of jokes seems struggling upward to
the free domain of Comedy; but in vain, his public holds him down, and
compels him to laugh in chains. Some day, perchance, a literary
historian, filled with the spirit of Cervantes or of Molière,
will give account of the Victorian era, and, not disdaining small things,
will draw a picture of the society which inspired and controlled so
resolute a jocularity. Then, at last, will the spirit of Comedy
recognise that these were indeed what they claimed to be—comic
papers.</p>
<p>“The style is the man;” but the social and rhetorical
influences adulterate and debase it, until not one man in a thousand
achieves his birthright, or claims his second self. The fire of
the soul burns all too feebly, and warms itself by the reflected heat
from the society around it. We give back words of tepid greeting,
without improvement. We talk to our fellows in the phrases we
learn from them, which come to mean less and less as they grow worn
with use. Then we exaggerate and distort, heaping epithet upon
epithet in the endeavour to get a little warmth out of the smouldering
pile. The quiet cynicism of our everyday demeanour is open and
shameless, we callously anticipate objections founded on the well-known
vacuity of our seeming emotions, and assure our friends that we are
“truly” grieved or “sincerely” rejoiced at their
hap—as if joy or grief that really exists were some rare and precious
brand of joy or grief. In its trivial conversational uses so simple
and pure a thing as joy becomes a sandwich-man—humanity degraded
to an advertisement. The poor dejected word shuffles along through
the mud in the service of the sleek trader who employs it, and not until
it meets with a poet is it rehabilitated and restored to dignity.</p>
<p>This is no indictment of society, which came into being before literature,
and, in all the distraction of its multifarious concerns, can hardly
keep a school for Style. It is rather a demonstration of the necessity,
amid the wealthy disorder of modern civilisation, for poetic diction.
One of the hardest of a poet’s tasks is the search for his vocabulary.
Perhaps in some idyllic pasture-land of Utopia there may have flourished
a state where division of labour was unknown, where community of ideas,
as well as of property, was absolute, and where the language of every
day ran clear into poetry without the need of a refining process.
They say that Caedmon was a cow-keeper: but the shepherds of Theocritus
and Virgil are figments of a courtly brain, and Wordsworth himself,
in his boldest flights of theory, was forced to allow of selection.
Even by selection from among the chaos of implements that are in daily
use around him, a poet can barely equip himself with a choice of words
sufficient for his needs; he must have recourse to his predecessors;
and so it comes about that the poetry of the modern world is a store-house
of obsolete diction. The most surprising characteristic of the
right poetic diction, whether it draw its vocabulary from near at hand,
or avail itself of the far-fetched inheritance preserved by the poets,
is its matchless sincerity. Something of extravagance there may
be in those brilliant clusters of romantic words that are everywhere
found in the work of Shakespeare, or Spenser, or Keats, but they are
the natural leafage and fruitage of a luxuriant imagination, which,
lacking these, could not attain to its full height. Only by the
energy of the arts can a voice be given to the subtleties and raptures
of emotional experience; ordinary social intercourse affords neither
opportunity nor means for this fervour of self-revelation. And
if the highest reach of poetry is often to be found in the use of common
colloquialisms, charged with the intensity of restrained passion, this
is not due to a greater sincerity of expression, but to the strength
derived from dramatic situation. Where speech spends itself on
its subject, drama stands idle; but where the dramatic stress is at
its greatest, three or four words may enshrine all the passion of the
moment. Romeo’s apostrophe from under the balcony -</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>O, speak again, bright Angel! for thou art<br />As glorious to this
night, being o’er my head,<br />As is a winged messenger of heaven<br />Unto
the white-upturned wond’ring eyes<br />Of mortals that fall back
to gaze on him,<br />When he bestrides the lazy-pacing clouds,<br />And
sails upon the bosom of the air -</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>though it breathe the soul of romance, must yield, for sheer effect,
to his later soliloquy, spoken when the news of Juliet’s death
is brought to him,</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>Well, Juliet, I will lie with thee to-night.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>And even the constellated glories of <i>Paradise</i> <i>Lost</i>
are less moving than the plain words wherein Samson forecasts his approaching
end -</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>So much I feel my genial spirits droop,<br />My hopes all flat; Nature
within me seems<br />In all her functions weary of herself;<br />My
race of glory run and race of shame,<br />And I shall shortly be with
them that rest.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>Here are simple words raised to a higher power and animated with
a purer intention than they carry in ordinary life. It is this
unfailing note of sincerity, eloquent or laconic, that has made poetry
the teacher of prose. Phrases which, to all seeming, might have
been hit on by the first comer, are often cut away from their poetical
context and robbed of their musical value that they may be transferred
to the service of prose. They bring with them, down to the valley,
a wafted sense of some region of higher thought and purer feeling.
They bear, perhaps, no marks of curious diction to know them by.
Whence comes the irresistible pathos of the lines -</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>I cannot but remember such things were<br />That were most precious
to me?</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>The thought, the diction, the syntax, might all occur in prose.
Yet when once the stamp of poetry has been put upon a cry that is as
old as humanity, prose desists from rivalry, and is content to quote.
Some of the greatest prose-writers have not disdained the help of these
borrowed graces for the crown of their fabric. In this way De
Quincey widens the imaginative range of his prose, and sets back the
limits assigned to prose diction. So too, Charles Lamb, interweaving
the stuff of experience with phrases quoted or altered from the poets,
illuminates both life and poetry, letting his sympathetic humour play
now on the warp of the texture, and now on the woof. The style
of Burke furnishes a still better example, for the spontaneous evolution
of his prose might be thought to forbid the inclusion of borrowed fragments.
Yet whenever he is deeply stirred, memories of Virgil, Milton, or the
English Bible rise to his aid, almost as if strong emotion could express
itself in no other language. Even the poor invectives of political
controversy gain a measure of dignity from the skilful application of
some famous line; the touch of the poet’s sincerity rests on them
for a moment, and seems to lend them an alien splendour. It is
like the blessing of a priest, invoked by the pious, or by the worldly,
for the good success of whatever business they have in hand. Poetry
has no temporal ends to serve, no livelihood to earn, and is under no
temptation to cog and lie: wherefore prose pays respect to that loftier
calling, and that more unblemished sincerity.</p>
<p>Insincerity, on the other hand, is the commonest vice of style.
It is not to be avoided, except in the rarest cases, by those to whom
the written use of language is unfamiliar; so that a shepherd who talks
pithy, terse sense will be unable to express himself in a letter without
having recourse to the <i>Ready Letter-writer</i>—“This
comes hoping to find you well, as it also leaves me at present”—and
a soldier, without the excuse of ignorance, will describe a successful
advance as having been made against “a thick hail of bullets.”
It permeates ordinary journalism, and all writing produced under commercial
pressure. It taints the work of the young artist, caught by the
romantic fever, who glories in the wealth of vocabulary discovered to
him by the poets, and seeks often in vain for a thought stalwart enough
to wear that glistering armour. Hence it is that the masters of
style have always had to preach restraint, self-denial, austerity.
His style is a man’s own; yet how hard it is to come by!
It is a man’s bride, to be won by labours and agonies that bespeak
a heroic lover. If he prove unable to endure the trial, there
are cheaper beauties, nearer home, easy to be conquered, and faithless
to their conqueror. Taking up with them, he may attain a brief
satisfaction, but he will never redeem his quest.</p>
<p>As a body of practical rules, the negative precepts of asceticism
bring with them a certain chill. The page is dull; it is so easy
to lighten it with some flash of witty irrelevance: the argument is
long and tedious, why not relieve it by wandering into some of those
green enclosures that open alluring doors upon the wayside? To
roam at will, spring-heeled, high-hearted, and catching at all good
fortunes, is the ambition of the youth, ere yet he has subdued himself
to a destination. The principle of self-denial seems at first
sight a treason done to genius, which was always privileged to be wilful.
In this view literature is a fortuitous series of happy thoughts and
heaven-sent findings. But the end of that plan is beggary.
Sprightly talk about the first object that meets the eye and the indulgence
of vagabond habits soon degenerate to a professional garrulity, a forced
face of dismal cheer, and a settled dislike of strenuous exercise.
The economies and abstinences of discipline promise a kinder fate than
this. They test and strengthen purpose, without which no great
work comes into being. They save the expenditure of energy on
those pastimes and diversions which lead no nearer to the goal.
To reject the images and arguments that proffer a casual assistance
yet are not to be brought under the perfect control of the main theme
is difficult; how should it be otherwise, for if they were not already
dear to the writer they would not have volunteered their aid.</p>
<p>It is the more difficult, in that to refuse the unfit is no warrant
of better help to come. But to accept them is to fall back for
good upon a makeshift, and to hazard the enterprise in a hubbub of disorderly
claims. No train of thought is strengthened by the addition of
those arguments that, like camp-followers, swell the number and the
noise, without bearing a part in the organisation. The danger
that comes in with the employment of figures of speech, similes, and
comparisons is greater still. The clearest of them may be attended
by some element of grotesque or paltry association, so that while they
illumine the subject they cannot truly be said to illustrate it.
The noblest, including those time-honoured metaphors that draw their
patent of nobility from war, love, religion, or the chase, in proportion
as they are strong and of a vivid presence, are also domineering—apt
to assume command of the theme long after their proper work is done.
So great is the headstrong power of the finest metaphors, that an author
may be incommoded by one that does his business for him handsomely,
as a king may suffer the oppression of a powerful ally. When a
lyric begins with the splendid lines,</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>Love still has something of the sea<br />From whence his mother rose,</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>the further development of that song is already fixed and its knell
rung—to the last line there is no escaping from the dazzling influences
that presided over the first. Yet to carry out such a figure in
detail, as Sir Charles Sedley set himself to do, tarnishes the sudden
glory of the opening. The lady whom Burns called Clarinda put
herself in a like quandary by beginning a song with this stanza -</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>Talk not of Love, it gives me pain,<br />For Love has been my foe;<br />He
bound me in an iron chain,<br />And plunged me deep in woe.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>The last two lines deserve praise—even the praise they obtained
from a great lyric poet. But how is the song to be continued?
Genius might answer the question; to Clarinda there came only the notion
of a valuable contrast to be established between love and friendship,
and a tribute to be paid to the kindly offices of the latter.
The verses wherein she gave effect to this idea make a poor sequel;
friendship, when it is personified and set beside the tyrant god, wears
very much the air of a benevolent county magistrate, whose chief duty
is to keep the peace.</p>
<p>Figures of this sort are in no sense removable decorations, they
are at one with the substance of the thought to be expressed, and are
entitled to the large control they claim. Imagination, working
at white heat, can fairly subdue the matter of the poem to them, or
fuse them with others of the like temper, striking unity out of the
composite mass. One thing only is forbidden, to treat these substantial
and living metaphors as if they were elegant curiosities, ornamental
excrescences, to be passed over abruptly on the way to more exacting
topics. The mystics, and the mystical poets, knew better than
to countenance this frivolity. Recognising that there is a profound
and intimate correspondence between all physical manifestations and
the life of the soul, they flung the reins on the neck of metaphor in
the hope that it might carry them over that mysterious frontier.
Their failures and misadventures, familiarly despised as “conceits,”
left them floundering in absurdity. Yet not since the time of
Donne and Crashaw has the full power and significance of figurative
language been realised in English poetry. These poets, like some
of their late descendants, were tortured by a sense of hidden meaning,
and were often content with analogies that admit of no rigorous explanation.
They were convinced that all intellectual truth is a parable, though
its inner meaning be dark or dubious. The philosophy of friendship
deals with those mathematical and physical conceptions of distance,
likeness, and attraction—what if the law of bodies govern souls
also, and the geometer’s compasses measure more than it has entered
into his heart to conceive? Is the moon a name only for a certain
tonnage of dead matter, and is the law of passion parochial while the
law of gravitation is universal? Mysticism will observe no such
partial boundaries.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>O more than Moon!<br />Draw not up seas to drown me in thy sphere,<br />Weep
me not dead in thine arms, but forbear<br />To teach the sea what it
may do too soon.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>The secret of these sublime intuitions, undivined by many of the
greatest poets, has been left to the keeping of transcendental religion
and the Catholic Church.</p>
<p>Figure and ornament, therefore, are not interchangeable terms; the
loftiest figurative style most conforms to the precepts of gravity and
chastity. None the less there is a decorative use of figure, whereby
a theme is enriched with imaginations and memories that are foreign
to the main purpose. Under this head may be classed most of those
allusions to the world’s literature, especially to classical and
Scriptural lore, which have played so considerable, yet on the whole
so idle, a part in modern poetry. It is here that an inordinate
love of decoration finds its opportunity and its snare. To keep
the most elaborate comparison in harmony with its occasion, so that
when it is completed it shall fall back easily into the emotional key
of the narrative, has been the study of the great epic poets.
Milton’s description of the rebel legions adrift on the flaming
sea is a fine instance of the difficulty felt and conquered:</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>Angel forms, who lay entranced<br />Thick as autumnal leaves that
strow the brooks<br />In Vallombrosa, where the Etrurian shades<br />High
over-arched embower; or scattered sedge<br />Afloat, when with fierce
winds Orion armed<br />Hath vexed the Red-Sea coast, whose waves o’erthrew<br />Busiris
and his Memphian chivalry,<br />While with perfidious hatred they pursued<br />The
sojourners of Goshen, who beheld<br />From the safe shore their floating
carcases<br />And broken chariot-wheels. So thick bestrown,<br />Abject
and lost, lay these, covering the flood,<br />Under amazement of their
hideous change.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>The comparison seems to wander away at random, obedient to the slightest
touch of association. Yet in the end it is brought back, its majesty
heightened, and a closer element of likeness introduced by the skilful
turn that substitutes the image of the shattered Egyptian army for the
former images of dead leaves and sea-weed. The incidental pictures,
of the roof of shades, of the watchers from the shore, and the very
name “Red Sea,” fortuitous as they may seem, all lend help
to the imagination in bodying forth the scene described. An earlier
figure in the same book of <i>Paradise Lost</i>, because it exhibits
a less conspicuous technical cunning, may even better show a poet’s
care for unity of tone and impression. Where Satan’s prostrate
bulk is compared to</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>that sea-beast<br />Leviathan, which God of all his works<br />Created
hugest that swim the ocean-stream,</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>the picture that follows of the Norse-pilot mooring his boat under
the lee of the monster is completed in a line that attunes the mind
once more to all the pathos and gloom of those infernal deeps:</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>while night<br />Invests the sea, and wishèd morn delays.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>So masterly a handling of the figures which usage and taste prescribe
to learned writers is rare indeed. The ordinary small scholar
disposes of his baggage less happily. Having heaped up knowledge
as a successful tradesman heaps up money, he is apt to believe that
his wealth makes him free of the company of letters, and a fellow craftsman
of the poets. The mark of his style is an excessive and pretentious
allusiveness. It was he whom the satirist designed in that taunt,
<i>Scire tuum nihil est nisi te scire hoc sciat alter—</i>“My
knowledge of thy knowledge is the knowledge thou covetest.”
His allusions and learned periphrases elucidate nothing; they put an
idle labour on the reader who understands them, and extort from baffled
ignorance, at which, perhaps, they are more especially aimed, a foolish
admiration. These tricks and vanities, the very corruption of
ornament, will always be found while the power to acquire knowledge
is more general than the strength to carry it or the skill to wield
it. The collector has his proper work to do in the commonwealth
of learning, but the ownership of a museum is a poor qualification for
the name of artist. Knowledge has two good uses; it may be frankly
communicated for the benefit of others, or it may minister matter to
thought; an allusive writer often robs it of both these functions.
He must needs display his possessions and his modesty at one and the
same time, producing his treasures unasked, and huddling them in uncouth
fashion past the gaze of the spectator, because, forsooth, he would
not seem to make a rarity of them. The subject to be treated,
the groundwork to be adorned, becomes the barest excuse for a profitless
haphazard ostentation. This fault is very incident to the scholarly
style, which often sacrifices emphasis and conviction to a futile air
of encyclopaedic grandeur.</p>
<p>Those who are repelled by this redundance of ornament, from which
even great writers are not wholly exempt, have sometimes been driven
by the force of reaction into a singular fallacy. The futility
of these literary quirks and graces has induced them to lay art under
the same interdict with ornament. Style and stylists, one will
say, have no attraction for him, he had rather hear honest men utter
their thoughts directly, clearly, and simply. The choice of words,
says another, and the conscious manipulation of sentences, is literary
foppery; the word that first offers is commonly the best, and the order
in which the thoughts occur is the order to be followed. Be natural,
be straightforward, they urge, and what you have to say will say itself
in the best possible manner. It is a welcome lesson, no doubt,
that these deluded Arcadians teach. A simple and direct style—who
would not give his all to purchase that! But is it in truth so
easy to be compassed? The greatest writers, when they are at the
top of happy hours, attain to it, now and again. Is all this tangled
contrariety of things a kind of fairyland, and does the writer, alone
among men, find that a beaten foot-path opens out before him as he goes,
to lead him, straight through the maze, to the goal of his desires?
To think so is to build a childish dream out of facts imperfectly observed,
and worthy of a closer observation. Sometimes the cry for simplicity
is the reverse of what it seems, and is uttered by those who had rather
hear words used in their habitual vague acceptations than submit to
the cutting directness of a good writer. Habit makes obscurity
grateful, and the simple style, in this view, is the style that allows
thought to run automatically into its old grooves and burrows.
The original writers who have combined real literary power with the
heresy of ease and nature are of another kind. A brutal personality,
excellently muscular, snatching at words as the handiest weapons wherewith
to inflict itself, and the whole body of its thoughts and preferences,
on suffering humanity, is likely enough to deride the daintiness of
conscious art. Such a writer is William Cobbett, who has often
been praised for the manly simplicity of his style, which he raised
into a kind of creed. His power is undeniable; his diction, though
he knew it not, both choice and chaste; yet page after page of his writing
suggests only the reflection that here is a prodigal waste of good English.
He bludgeons all he touches, and spends the same monotonous emphasis
on his dislike of tea and on his hatred of the Government. His
is the simplicity of a crude and violent mind, concerned only with giving
forcible expression to its unquestioned prejudices. Irrelevance,
the besetting sin of the ill-educated, he glories in, so that his very
weakness puts on the semblance of strength, and helps to wield the hammer.</p>
<p>It is not to be denied that there is a native force of temperament
which can make itself felt even through illiterate carelessness.
“Literary gentlemen, editors, and critics,” says Thoreau,
himself by no means a careless writer, “think that they know how
to write, because they have studied grammar and rhetoric; but they are
egregiously mistaken. The <i>art</i> of composition is as simple
as the discharge of a bullet from a rifle, and its masterpieces imply
an infinitely greater force behind them.” This true saying
introduces us to the hardest problem of criticism, the paradox of literature,
the stumbling-block of rhetoricians. To analyse the precise method
whereby a great personality can make itself felt in words, even while
it neglects and contemns the study of words, would be to lay bare the
secrets of religion and life—it is beyond human competence.
Nevertheless a brief and diffident consideration of the matter may bring
thus much comfort, that the seeming contradiction is no discredit cast
on letters, but takes its origin rather from too narrow and pedantic
a view of the scope of letters.</p>
<p>Words are things: it is useless to try to set them in a world apart.
They exist in books only by accident, and for one written there are
a thousand, infinitely more powerful, spoken. They are deeds:
the man who brings word of a lost battle can work no comparable effect
with the muscles of his arm; Iago’s breath is as truly laden with
poison and murder as the fangs of the cobra and the drugs of the assassin.
Hence the sternest education in the use of words is least of all to
be gained in the schools, which cultivate verbiage in a highly artificial
state of seclusion. A soldier cares little for poetry, because
it is the exercise of power that he loves, and he is accustomed to do
more with his words than give pleasure. To keep language in immediate
touch with reality, to lade it with action and passion, to utter it
hot from the heart of determination, is to exhibit it in the plenitude
of power. All this may be achieved without the smallest study
of literary models, and is consistent with a perfect neglect of literary
canons. It is not the logical content of the word, but the whole
mesh of its conditions, including the character, circumstances, and
attitude of the speaker, that is its true strength. “Damn”
is often the feeblest of expletives, and “as you please”
may be the dirge of an empire. Hence it is useless to look to
the grammarian, or the critic, for a lesson in strength of style; the
laws that he has framed, good enough in themselves, are current only
in his own abstract world. A breath of hesitancy will sometimes
make trash of a powerful piece of eloquence; and even in writing, a
thing three times said, and each time said badly, may be of more effect
than that terse, full, and final expression which the doctors rightly
commend. The art of language, regarded as a question of pattern
and cadence, or even as a question of logic and thought-sequence, is
a highly abstract study; for although, as has been said, you can do
almost anything with words, with words alone you can do next to nothing.
The realm where speech holds sway is a narrow shoal or reef, shaken,
contorted, and upheaved by volcanic action, beaten upon, bounded, and
invaded by the ocean of silence: whoso would be lord of the earth must
first tame the fire and the sea. Dramatic and narrative writing
are happy in this, that action and silence are a part of their material;
the story-teller or the playwright can make of words a background and
definition for deeds, a framework for those silences that are more telling
than any speech. Here lies an escape from the poverty of content
and method to which self-portraiture and self-expression are liable;
and therefore are epic and drama rated above all other kinds of poetry.
The greater force of the objective treatment is witnessed by many essayists
and lyrical poets, whose ambition has led them, sooner or later, to
attempt the novel or the play. There are weaknesses inherent in
all direct self-revelation; the thing, perhaps, is greatly said, yet
there is no great occasion for the saying of it; a fine reticence is
observed, but it is, after all, an easy reticence, with none of the
dramatic splendours of reticence on the rack. In the midst of
his pleasant confidences the essayist is brought up short by the question,
“Why must you still be talking?” Even the passionate
lyric feels the need of external authorisation, and some of the finest
of lyrical poems, like the Willow Song of Desdemona, or Wordsworth’s
<i>Solitary Reaper</i>, are cast in a dramatic mould, that beauty of
diction may be vitalised by an imagined situation. More than others
the dramatic art is an enemy to the desultory and the superfluous, sooner
than others it will cast away all formal grace of expression that it
may come home more directly to the business and bosoms of men.
Its great power and scope are shown well in this, that it can find high
uses for the commonest stuff of daily speech and the emptiest phrases
of daily intercourse.</p>
<p>Simplicity and strength, then, the vigorous realistic quality of
impromptu utterance, and an immediate relation with the elementary facts
of life, are literary excellences best known in the drama, and in its
modern fellow and rival, the novel. The dramatist and novelist
create their own characters, set their own scenes, lay their own plots,
and when all has been thus prepared, the right word is born in the purple,
an inheritor of great opportunities, all its virtues magnified by the
glamour of its high estate. Writers on philosophy, morals, or
aesthetics, critics, essayists, and dealers in soliloquy generally,
cannot hope, with their slighter means, to attain to comparable effects.
They work at two removes from life; the terms that they handle are surrounded
by the vapours of discussion, and are rewarded by no instinctive response.
Simplicity, in its most regarded sense, is often beyond their reach;
the matter of their discourse is intricate, and the most they can do
is to employ patience, care, and economy of labour; the meaning of their
words is not obvious, and they must go aside to define it. The
strength of their writing has limits set for it by the nature of the
chosen task, and any transgression of these limits is punished by a
fall into sheer violence. All writing partakes of the quality
of the drama, there is always a situation involved, the relation, namely,
between the speaker and the hearer. A gentleman in black, expounding
his views, or narrating his autobiography to the first comer, can expect
no such warmth of response as greets the dying speech of the baffled
patriot; yet he too may take account of the reasons that prompt speech,
may display sympathy and tact, and avoid the faults of senility.
The only character that can lend strength to his words is his own, and
he sketches it while he states his opinions; the only attitude that
can ennoble his sayings is implied in the very arguments he uses.
Who does not know the curious blank effect of eloquence overstrained
or out of place? The phrasing may be exquisite, the thought well-knit,
the emotion genuine, yet all is, as it were, dumb-show where no community
of feeling exists between the speaker and his audience. A similar
false note is struck by any speaker or writer who misapprehends his
position or forgets his disqualifications, by newspaper writers using
language that is seemly only in one who stakes his life on his words,
by preachers exceeding the license of fallibility, by moralists condemning
frailty, by speculative traders deprecating frank ways of hazard, by
Satan rebuking sin.</p>
<p>“How many things are there,” exclaims the wise Verulam,
“which a man cannot, with any face or comeliness, say or do himself!
A man’s person hath many proper relations which he cannot put
off. A man cannot speak to his son but as a father; to his wife,
but as a husband; to his enemy but upon terms; whereas a friend may
speak as the case requires, and not as it sorteth with the person.”
The like “proper relations” govern writers, even where their
audience is unknown to them. It has often been remarked how few
are the story-tellers who can introduce themselves, so much as by a
passing reflection or sentiment, without a discordant effect.
The friend who saves the situation is found in one and another of the
creatures of their art.</p>
<p>For those who must play their own part the effort to conceal themselves
is of no avail. The implicit attitude of a writer makes itself
felt; an undue swelling of his subject to heroic dimensions, an unwarrantable
assumption of sympathy, a tendency to truck with friends or with enemies
by the way, are all possible indications of weakness, which move even
the least skilled of readers to discount what is said, as they catch
here and there a glimpse of the old pot-companion, or the young dandy,
behind the imposing literary mask. Strong writers are those who,
with every reserve of power, seek no exhibition of strength. It
is as if language could not come by its full meaning save on the lips
of those who regard it as an evil necessity. Every word is torn
from them, as from a reluctant witness. They come to speech as
to a last resort, when all other ways have failed. The bane of
a literary education is that it induces talkativeness, and an overweening
confidence in words. But those whose words are stark and terrible
seem almost to despise words.</p>
<p>With words literature begins, and to words it must return.
Coloured by the neighbourhood of silence, solemnised by thought or steeled
by action, words are still its only means of rising above words.
“<i>Accedat verbum ad elementum</i>,” said St. Ambrose,
“<i>et fiat sacramentum</i>.” So the elementary passions,
pity and love, wrath and terror, are not in themselves poetical; they
must be wrought upon by the word to become poetry. In no other
way can suffering be transformed to pathos, or horror reach its apotheosis
in tragedy.</p>
<p>When all has been said, there remains a residue capable of no formal
explanation. Language, this array of conventional symbols loosely
strung together, and blown about by every wandering breath, is miraculously
vital and expressive, justifying not a few of the myriad superstitions
that have always attached to its use. The same words are free
to all, yet no wealth or distinction of vocabulary is needed for a group
of words to take the stamp of an individual mind and character.
“As a quality of style” says Mr. Pater, “soul is a
fact.” To resolve how words, like bodies, become transparent
when they are inhabited by that luminous reality, is a higher pitch
than metaphysic wit can fly. Ardent persuasion and deep feeling
enkindle words, so that the weakest take on glory. The humblest
and most despised of common phrases may be the chosen vessel for the
next avatar of the spirit. It is the old problem, to be met only
by the old solution of the Platonist, that</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>Soul is form, and doth the body make.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>The soul is able to inform language by some strange means other than
the choice and arrangement of words and phrases. Real novelty
of vocabulary is impossible; in the matter of language we lead a parasitical
existence, and are always quoting. Quotations, conscious or unconscious,
vary in kind according as the mind is active to work upon them and make
them its own. In its grossest and most servile form quotation
is a lazy folly; a thought has received some signal or notorious expression,
and as often as the old sense, or something like it, recurs, the old
phrase rises to the lips. This degenerates to simple phrase-mongering,
and those who practise it are not vigilantly jealous of their meaning.
Such an expression as “fine by degrees and beautifully less”
is often no more than a bloated equivalent for a single word—say
“diminishing” or “shrinking.” Quotations
like this are the warts and excremental parts of language; the borrowings
of good writers are never thus superfluous, their quotations are appropriations.
Whether it be by some witty turn given to a well-known line, by an original
setting for an old saw, or by a new and unlooked-for analogy, the stamp
of the borrower is put upon the goods he borrows, and he becomes part
owner. Plagiarism is a crime only where writing is a trade; expression
need never be bound by the law of copyright while it follows thought,
for thought, as some great thinker has observed, is free. The
words were once Shakespeare’s; if only you can feel them as he
did, they are yours now no less than his. The best quotations,
the best translations, the best thefts, are all equally new and original
works. From quotation, at least, there is no escape, inasmuch
as we learn language from others. All common phrases that do the
dirty work of the world are quotations—poor things, and not our
own. Who first said that a book would “repay perusal,”
or that any gay scene was “bright with all the colours of the
rainbow”? There is no need to condemn these phrases, for
language has a vast deal of inferior work to do. The expression
of thought, temperament, attitude, is not the whole of its business.
It is only a literary fop or doctrinaire who will attempt to remint
all the small defaced coinage that passes through his hands, only a
lisping young fantastico who will refuse all conventional garments and
all conventional speech. At a modern wedding the frock-coat is
worn, the presents are “numerous and costly,” and there
is an “ovation accorded to the happy pair.” These
things are part of our public civilisation, a decorous and accessible
uniform, not to be lightly set aside. But let it be a friend of
your own who is to marry, a friend of your own who dies, and you are
to express yourself—the problem is changed, you feel all the difficulties
of the art of style, and fathom something of the depth of your unskill.
Forbidden silence, we should be in a poor way indeed.</p>
<p>Single words too we plagiarise when we use them without realisation
and mastery of their meaning. The best argument for a succinct
style is this, that if you use words you do not need, or do not understand,
you cannot se them well. It is not what a word means, but what
it means to you, that is of the deepest import. Let it be a weak
word, with a poor history behind it, if you have done good thinking
with it, you may yet use it to surprising advantage. But if, on
the other hand, it be a strong word that has never aroused more than
a misty idea and a flickering emotion in your mind, here lies your danger.
You may use it, for there is none to hinder; and it will betray you.
The commonest Saxon words prove explosive machines in the hands of rash
impotence. It is perhaps a certain uneasy consciousness of danger,
a suspicion that weakness of soul cannot wield these strong words, that
makes debility avoid them, committing itself rather, as if by some pre-established
affinity, to the vaguer Latinised vocabulary. Yet they are not
all to be avoided, and their quality in practice will depend on some
occult ability in their employer. For every living person, if
the material were obtainable, a separate historical dictionary might
be compiled, recording where each word was first heard or seen, where
and how it was first used. The references are utterly beyond recovery;
but such a register would throw a strange light on individual styles.
The eloquent trifler, whose stock of words has been accumulated by a
pair of light fingers, would stand denuded of his plausible pretences
as soon as it were seen how roguishly he came by his eloquence.
There may be literary quality, it is well to remember, in the words
of a parrot, if only its cage has been happily placed; meaning and soul
there cannot be. Yet the voice will sometimes be mistaken, by
the carelessness of chance listeners, for a genuine utterance of humanity;
and the like is true in literature. But writing cannot be luminous
and great save in the hands of those whose words are their own by the
indefeasible title of conquest. Life is spent in learning the
meaning of great words, so that some idle proverb, known for years and
accepted perhaps as a truism, comes home, on a day, like a blow.
“If there were not a God,” said Voltaire, “it would
be necessary to invent him.” Voltaire had therefore a right
to use the word, but some of those who use it most, if they would be
perfectly sincere, should enclose it in quotation marks. Whole
nations go for centuries without coining names for certain virtues;
is it credible that among other peoples, where the names exists the
need for them is epidemic? The author of the <i>Ecclesiastial
Polity</i> puts a bolder and truer face on the matter. “Concerning
that Faith, Hope, and Charity,” he writes, “without which
there can be no salvation, was there ever any mention made saving only
in that Law which God himself hath from Heaven revealed? There
is not in the world a syllable muttered with certain truth concerning
any of these three, more than hath been supernaturally received from
the mouth of the eternal God.” Howsoever they came to us,
we have the words; they, and many other terms of tremendous import,
are bandied about from mouth to mouth and alternately enriched or impoverished
in meaning. Is the “Charity” of St. Paul’s Epistle
one with the charity of “charity-blankets”? Are the
“crusades” of Godfrey and of the great St. Louis, where
knightly achievement did homage to the religious temper, essentially
the same as that process of harrying the wretched and the outcast for
which the muddle-headed, greasy citizen of to-day invokes the same high
name? Of a truth, some kingly words fall to a lower estate than
Nebuchadnezzar.</p>
<p>Here, among words, our lot is cast, to make or mar. It is in
this obscure thicket, overgrown with weeds, set with thorns, and haunted
by shadows, this World of Words, as the Elizabethans finely called it,
that we wander, eternal pioneers, during the course of our mortal lives.
To be overtaken by a master, one who comes along with the gaiety of
assured skill and courage, with the gravity of unflinching purpose,
to make the crooked ways straight and the rough places plain, is to
gain fresh confidence from despair. He twines wreaths of the entangling
ivy, and builds ramparts of the thorns. He blazes his mark upon
the secular oaks, as a guidance to later travellers, and coaxes flame
from heaps of mouldering rubbish. There is no sense of cheer like
this. Sincerity, clarity, candour, power, seem real once more,
real and easy. In the light of great literary achievement, straight
and wonderful, like the roads of the ancient Romans, barbarism torments
the mind like a riddle. Yet there are the dusky barbarians!—fleeing
from the harmonious tread of the ordered legions, running to hide themselves
in the morass of vulgar sentiment, to ambush their nakedness in the
sand-pits of low thought.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>It is a venerable custom to knit up the speculative consideration
of any subject with the counsels of practical wisdom. The words
of this essay have been vain indeed if the idea that style may be imparted
by tuition has eluded them, and survived. There is a useful art
of Grammar, which takes for its province the right and the wrong in
speech. Style deals only with what is permissible to all, and
even revokes, on occasion, the rigid laws of Grammar or countenances
offences against them. Yet no one is a better judge of equity
for ignorance of the law, and grammatical practice offers a fair field
wherein to acquire ease, accuracy and versatility. The formation
of sentences, the sequence of verbs, the marshalling of the ranks of
auxiliaries are all, in a sense, to be learned. There is a kind
of inarticulate disorder to which writers are liable, quite distinct
from a bad style, and caused chiefly by lack of exercise. An unpractised
writer will sometimes send a beautiful and powerful phrase jostling
along in the midst of a clumsy sentence—like a crowned king escorted
by a mob.</p>
<p>But Style cannot be taught. Imitation of the masters, or of
some one chosen master, and the constant purging of language by a severe
criticism, have their uses, not to be belittled; they have also their
dangers. The greater part of what is called the teaching of style
must always be negative, bad habits may be broken down, old malpractices
prohibited. The pillory and the stocks are hardly educational
agents, but they make it easier for honest men to enjoy their own.
If style could really be taught, it is a question whether its teachers
should not be regarded as mischief-makers and enemies of mankind.
The Rosicrucians professed to have found the philosopher’s stone,
and the shadowy sages of modern Thibet are said, by those who speak
for them, to have compassed the instantaneous transference of bodies
from place to place. In either case, the holders of these secrets
have laudably refused to publish them, lest avarice and malice should
run amuck in human society. A similar fear might well visit the
conscience of one who should dream that he had divulged to the world
at large what can be done with language. Of this there is no danger;
rhetoric, it is true, does put fluency, emphasis, and other warlike
equipments at the disposal of evil forces, but style, like the Christian
religion, is one of those open secrets which are most easily and most
effectively kept by the initiate from age to age. Divination is
the only means of access to these mysteries. The formal attempt
to impart a good style is like the melancholy task of the teacher of
gesture and oratory; some palpable faults are soon corrected; and, for
the rest, a few conspicuous mannerisms, a few theatrical postures, not
truly expressive, and a high tragical strut, are all that can be imparted.
The truth of the old Roman teachers of rhetoric is here witnessed afresh,
to be a good orator it is first of all necessary to be a good man.
Good style is the greatest of revealers,—it lays bare the soul.
The soul of the cheat shuns nothing so much. “Always be
ready to speak your minds” said Blake, “and a base man will
avoid you.” But to insist that he also shall speak his mind
is to go a step further, it is to take from the impostor his wooden
leg, to prohibit his lucrative whine, his mumping and his canting, to
force the poor silly soul to stand erect among its fellows and declare
itself. His occupation is gone, and he does not love the censor
who deprives him of the weapons of his mendicity.</p>
<p>All style is gesture, the gesture of the mind and of the soul.
Mind we have in common, inasmuch as the laws of right reason are not
different for different minds. Therefore clearness and arrangement
can be taught, sheer incompetence in the art of expression can be partly
remedied. But who shall impose laws upon the soul? It is
thus of common note that one may dislike or even hate a particular style
while admiring its facility, its strength, its skilful adaptation to
the matter set forth. Milton, a chaster and more unerring master
of the art than Shakespeare, reveals no such lovable personality.
While persons count for much, style, the index to persons, can never
count for little. “Speak,” it has been said, “that
I may know you”—voice-gesture is more than feature.
Write, and after you have attained to some control over the instrument,
you write yourself down whether you will or no. There is no vice,
however unconscious, no virtue, however shy, no touch of meanness or
of generosity in your character, that will not pass on to the paper.
You anticipate the Day of Judgment and furnish the recording angel with
material. The Art of Criticism in literature, so often decried
and given a subordinate place among the arts, is none other than the
art of reading and interpreting these written evidences. Criticism
has been popularly opposed to creation, perhaps because the kind of
creation that it attempts is rarely achieved, and so the world forgets
that the main business of Criticism, after all, is not to legislate,
nor to classify, but to raise the dead. Graves, at its command,
have waked their sleepers, oped, and let them forth. It is by
the creative power of this art that the living man is reconstructed
from the litter of blurred and fragmentary paper documents that he has
left to posterity.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines3"><br /><br /><br /></div>
<p>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK, STYLE ***</p>
<pre>
******This file should be named style10h.htm or style10h.zip******
Corrected EDITIONS of our EBooks get a new NUMBER, style11h.htm
VERSIONS based on separate sources get new LETTER, style10ah.htm
Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the US
unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we usually do not
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
We are now trying to release all our eBooks one year in advance
of the official release dates, leaving time for better editing.
Please be encouraged to tell us about any error or corrections,
even years after the official publication date.
Please note neither this listing nor its contents are final til
midnight of the last day of the month of any such announcement.
The official release date of all Project Gutenberg eBooks is at
Midnight, Central Time, of the last day of the stated month. A
preliminary version may often be posted for suggestion, comment
and editing by those who wish to do so.
Most people start at our Web sites at:
http://gutenberg.net or
http://promo.net/pg
These Web sites include award-winning information about Project
Gutenberg, including how to donate, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter (free!).
Those of you who want to download any eBook before announcement
can get to them as follows, and just download by date. This is
also a good way to get them instantly upon announcement, as the
indexes our cataloguers produce obviously take a while after an
announcement goes out in the Project Gutenberg Newsletter.
http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext05 or
ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext05
Or /etext04, 03, 02, 01, 00, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92,
91 or 90
Just search by the first five letters of the filename you want,
as it appears in our Newsletters.
Information about Project Gutenberg (one page)
We produce about two million dollars for each hour we work. The
time it takes us, a rather conservative estimate, is fifty hours
to get any eBook selected, entered, proofread, edited, copyright
searched and analyzed, the copyright letters written, etc. Our
projected audience is one hundred million readers. If the value
per text is nominally estimated at one dollar then we produce $2
million dollars per hour in 2002 as we release over 100 new text
files per month: 1240 more eBooks in 2001 for a total of 4000+
We are already on our way to trying for 2000 more eBooks in 2002
If they reach just 1-2% of the world's population then the total
will reach over half a trillion eBooks given away by year's end.
The Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away 1 Trillion eBooks!
This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million readers,
which is only about 4% of the present number of computer users.
Here is the briefest record of our progress (* means estimated):
eBooks Year Month
1 1971 July
10 1991 January
100 1994 January
1000 1997 August
1500 1998 October
2000 1999 December
2500 2000 December
3000 2001 November
4000 2001 October/November
6000 2002 December*
9000 2003 November*
10000 2004 January*
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been created
to secure a future for Project Gutenberg into the next millennium.
We need your donations more than ever!
As of February, 2002, contributions are being solicited from people
and organizations in: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut,
Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
We have filed in all 50 states now, but these are the only ones
that have responded.
As the requirements for other states are met, additions to this list
will be made and fund raising will begin in the additional states.
Please feel free to ask to check the status of your state.
In answer to various questions we have received on this:
We are constantly working on finishing the paperwork to legally
request donations in all 50 states. If your state is not listed and
you would like to know if we have added it since the list you have,
just ask.
While we cannot solicit donations from people in states where we are
not yet registered, we know of no prohibition against accepting
donations from donors in these states who approach us with an offer to
donate.
International donations are accepted, but we don't know ANYTHING about
how to make them tax-deductible, or even if they CAN be made
deductible, and don't have the staff to handle it even if there are
ways.
Donations by check or money order may be sent to:
PROJECT GUTENBERG LITERARY ARCHIVE FOUNDATION
809 North 1500 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Contact us if you want to arrange for a wire transfer or payment
method other than by check or money order.
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been approved by
the US Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) organization with EIN
[Employee Identification Number] 64-622154. Donations are
tax-deductible to the maximum extent permitted by law. As fund-raising
requirements for other states are met, additions to this list will be
made and fund-raising will begin in the additional states.
We need your donations more than ever!
You can get up to date donation information online at:
http://www.gutenberg.net/donation.html
***
If you can't reach Project Gutenberg,
you can always email directly to:
Michael S. Hart hart@pobox.com
Prof. Hart will answer or forward your message.
We would prefer to send you information by email.
**The Legal Small Print**
(Three Pages)
***START**THE SMALL PRINT!**FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN EBOOKS**START***
Why is this "Small Print!" statement here? You know: lawyers.
They tell us you might sue us if there is something wrong with
your copy of this eBook, even if you got it for free from
someone other than us, and even if what's wrong is not our
fault. So, among other things, this "Small Print!" statement
disclaims most of our liability to you. It also tells you how
you may distribute copies of this eBook if you want to.
*BEFORE!* YOU USE OR READ THIS EBOOK
By using or reading any part of this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
eBook, you indicate that you understand, agree to and accept
this "Small Print!" statement. If you do not, you can receive
a refund of the money (if any) you paid for this eBook by
sending a request within 30 days of receiving it to the person
you got it from. If you received this eBook on a physical
medium (such as a disk), you must return it with your request.
ABOUT PROJECT GUTENBERG-TM EBOOKS
This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBook, like most PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBooks,
is a "public domain" work distributed by Professor Michael S. Hart
through the Project Gutenberg Association (the "Project").
Among other things, this means that no one owns a United States copyright
on or for this work, so the Project (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and
without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth
below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this eBook
under the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark.
Please do not use the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark to market
any commercial products without permission.
To create these eBooks, the Project expends considerable
efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public domain
works. Despite these efforts, the Project's eBooks and any
medium they may be on may contain "Defects". Among other
things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged
disk or other eBook medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
LIMITED WARRANTY; DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES
But for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described below,
[1] Michael Hart and the Foundation (and any other party you may
receive this eBook from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBook) disclaims
all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including
legal fees, and [2] YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE OR
UNDER STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONTRACT,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
If you discover a Defect in this eBook within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any)
you paid for it by sending an explanatory note within that
time to the person you received it from. If you received it
on a physical medium, you must return it with your note, and
such person may choose to alternatively give you a replacement
copy. If you received it electronically, such person may
choose to alternatively give you a second opportunity to
receive it electronically.
THIS EBOOK IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS". NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO YOU AS
TO THE EBOOK OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or
the exclusion or limitation of consequential damages, so the
above disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you, and you
may have other legal rights.
INDEMNITY
You will indemnify and hold Michael Hart, the Foundation,
and its trustees and agents, and any volunteers associated
with the production and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm
texts harmless, from all liability, cost and expense, including
legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the
following that you do or cause: [1] distribution of this eBook,
[2] alteration, modification, or addition to the eBook,
or [3] any Defect.
DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm"
You may distribute copies of this eBook electronically, or by
disk, book or any other medium if you either delete this
"Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg,
or:
[1] Only give exact copies of it. Among other things, this
requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the
eBook or this "small print!" statement. You may however,
if you wish, distribute this eBook in machine readable
binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form,
including any form resulting from conversion by word
processing or hypertext software, but only so long as
*EITHER*:
[*] The eBook, when displayed, is clearly readable, and
does *not* contain characters other than those
intended by the author of the work, although tilde
(~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may
be used to convey punctuation intended by the
author, and additional characters may be used to
indicate hypertext links; OR
[*] The eBook may be readily converted by the reader at
no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent
form by the program that displays the eBook (as is
the case, for instance, with most word processors);
OR
[*] You provide, or agree to also provide on request at
no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the
eBook in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC
or other equivalent proprietary form).
[2] Honor the eBook refund and replacement provisions of this
"Small Print!" statement.
[3] Pay a trademark license fee to the Foundation of 20% of the
gross profits you derive calculated using the method you
already use to calculate your applicable taxes. If you
don't derive profits, no royalty is due. Royalties are
payable to "Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation"
the 60 days following each date you prepare (or were
legally required to prepare) your annual (or equivalent
periodic) tax return. Please contact us beforehand to
let us know your plans and to work out the details.
WHAT IF YOU *WANT* TO SEND MONEY EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO?
Project Gutenberg is dedicated to increasing the number of
public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed
in machine readable form.
The Project gratefully accepts contributions of money, time,
public domain materials, or royalty free copyright licenses.
Money should be paid to the:
"Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
If you are interested in contributing scanning equipment or
software or other items, please contact Michael Hart at:
hart@pobox.com
[Portions of this eBook's header and trailer may be reprinted only
when distributed free of all fees. Copyright (C) 2001, 2002 by
Michael S. Hart. Project Gutenberg is a TradeMark and may not be
used in any sales of Project Gutenberg eBooks or other materials be
they hardware or software or any other related product without
express permission.]
*END THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN EBOOKS*Ver.02/11/02*END*
</pre></body>
</html>
|
