The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1879-03-01


play is liked better than an unclean one If it
be as well-constructed, as well written, and
as well-acted. Nay it bas an advantage ov-
er the unclean thing. The nasty play must
be very witty indeed or tell story exception
ally well to force us to tolerate its nastiness.
A decent play is not under that necessity.
1t doesn't need spices to disguise bad dish.
The Pinafore is not SO witty as many
French opera-bouffe, but it is quite as enter
tanning and even more popular.
The truth is people generally do rot like
filth for itself. How intoerably offensive,
for example, we find Rabeais. We read
him with wondering and melancholy inter-
est, because our great-grandfathers nearly
laughed themselves into convuIsions over
him. But we do not enjoy him-except
when we encounter some satirical passage
that has not lost its force by age, some
sharp sentence ridiculing folly that abides
With us. 1t is but just and reasonable to be-
lieve that our ancestors delighted in the
French humorist not because of his indecen-
cy. but because he satirzed follies and pre-
tensions Of which they felt impatient. The
pretensions have passed away, the satire has
lost its edge, and we vote Rabelais dull. If
the nastiness of him made him liked Of men,
his writings would be as much enjoyed tc-
day as they were three centuries ago.
ga Literary Feller," who says some
kind things concerning the Drawer, objects
to Yorick's assumption that people of literary
tastes exaggerate the merit Of acquaintance
with books, and asks, using the familiar
orgunaentum ad hominem, if Yorick wouldn't
enjoy himself better with bookish people
than in the company of low, ignorant fel
lows. The question is good illustration of
what the English poet calls "the falsehood
OF extremes. Because man is not bookish
he is not "a low fellow" Israel
Putnam, If we may judge by letters and
language of his brought again to public at
tention at the celebration, few days ago, of
his bieak-neck ride, had slight acquaintance
with books-and little love for them. But
most of US would feel proud of his acquaint-
ance.
The query of the Literary Feller'' is a
fair example of the conceit commented upon
in the Drawer last week. He assumes that
the companionship in which he delights is
the best in the world, not only for him but
for everybody else. He begs the question at
the start. People who are not interested in
books, but are devoted to practical mechan-
| cs, who delight in the horseshoe magnet,
who like to watch the habits of birds, who
take pleasure in herd-lists, may not only be
| quite as useful, but far more entertaining.
Yorck knows some of these whose compan-
ionship is delightful, as he knows some book
| ish people whom he shuns as he would a
| pestilence. He calls to mind a young wo-
man who once rode about country fair
| ground with her father, man who had done
the State long and good service, and made
his mark on its history. This man who had
worked successfully for the advancement of
| agriculture in his neighborhood, and had a
lively interest In stock-raising, stopped before
every SIau wnere ne saw nne bull, and
~stua "a horcE buit-i taai- si'-~~<l-iaauiEad
into the bulls pedigree, and carefully noted
down the names of its sire and grandsire.
The young lady thought the proceeding in
delicate and blushed great deal. She pre-
ferred the society of literary people. Her
father thought bulls more entertaining. She
liked to read the Autocrat. So did he; but
he found good deal of useful information in
| the herd-book, too.
The maxim, ''taste is not to be disputed"
is trite now, but like most trite things 1t is
/ Soma fbipk ho "a.
dinner is more entertaining and quite as
| profitable as the discussion of DR.. Hollands
latest novel. Some think the introduction
| of Jersey stock into our farm-yards quite as
| important as puzzlng over Edgar Fawcett's
latest rhymed riddle. Some think the franz
ing of laws to govern forty millions of people
as noble as the study of Joseph Cook or the
perusal of tine Literary World. Must we look
| upon them as inferior to US book-lovers? Let
the Literary Feler" imagine case Sap
pose he were thrown into the society Of
| Auguste Comic and Emmanuel Kant and
| George Henry Lewes. might he not find the
companionship intolerably "heavy"? Yet
\ because of his uneasiness In that society he
would not regard himself as a fool or fellow
of low tastes. 1T takes all sorts of people to
make up world" and most of them are
pretty good and sensible people.
| Yet another correspondent, "Purist,"
has, to use an expression he may dislike, a
bone to pick with Yorick. The bone of con
tention is Newspaper English" Purist
wants TO know if Yorick approves of the vio-
lations OF the rules of rhetoric, the disre-
| gard of grammar, the carelessness concern
ing form and literary style and the coinage of
"new and uncalled-for words in which the
newspapers indulge themselves" Purist
evades or does not see the point Yorick tried
to make. Yorick does not claim that 'News-
paper English" is perfect, or that it should be
taken as a m odel of style. He only says it is
quite as good as the English of ordinary
books, and expresses the opinion that IL
usually meets the first requirement of writ
ing, clearness Of expression. 1t certainly
has great faults, but the faults are not pecu
liar 10 it.
As for the coinage of words, the newspaper
coins more than the book because it talks
more. While one book is going through the
press thousand newspapers are read. The
coinage of words has been going on ever since
language was invented, going on against The
protest of conservatives like Purist; and W I
continue in spite of protests. 1t is quite true
many forcible, or picturesque or useful ex-
pressions have been permitted to die out, to
the injury Of anguage, and that many word;
we could well dispense with have been intro
duced. But the world fancies it has need o.
the new words and clings to them. Some
words meet temporary need and are dis
carded after their term of service is over
Whenever strong, picturesque word Is suf
fered to fall into dsuse or words of slightly
differing Specification are confused and so the
expression of delicate shades of meaning
blurred, OF when the meaning of word is
perverted, the result is to be deprecated.
Doubtless newspapers are guilty of doing
these things. So are books. There is, too,
good reason why we should adopt uniform
rules in the formation OF new words; but