The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1891-01-23
THE IDEAL IN LITERATURE.
The Difference in Form and Style Between
the Ancient and the Modern Nriters.

The Dlnerence IN Form and Style Between
the Ancient and the Modern Writers.
The art instinct has never been wholly
absent from the realms of letters. The
first literature of the world was. with
few exceptions, poetic in form as well
as in spirit. The feeling of the earliest
writers, and of those who composed be-
fore the invention of alphabets. was
that there should be between meaning
and expression correspondence more
intimate and complete than any that
could be convened in direct. unmeasured
speech. We call the feeling an instinct,
because it existed before The growth of
tradition and the formation of schools.
1t was, therefore, natural and Just,
meeting a want of human nature as
music does. Homer was artistic and ir-
artificial The rules which he followed
in the construction of his lines were i'm
posed upon him by his own sense of
their appropriateness to his subject mat
ter. They fashioned fit organ for epic
song. and it was his poetic genius that
he knew when he had caught the proper
pitch of his lofty theme.
A man may have poetic feeling, he
may share all the poets joy in the pres
ence of beauty and subl;mity, without
this fine aesthetic power this subtle tact
in the selection of form; but, though in
that case he may enjoy the poetry of
others. he can never he himself poet
1t is the sense of form, not mere emo
tional susceptibility, that distinguishes
the artist from other men. 1t is mani
fest that the ancient prose writer's also
had this peculiar sense. They. too, were
| artists, though they exercised Il large
liberty in the matter of form. Ancient
orations were strictly literary compo-
sitions, and they were constructed with
measured periods and often with an un-
mistakable rhythm.
Ancient historians avoided the evil
dence of passion which the orators be-
trayed in cadence, and which would
have been out of keeping in Il judicial
review of public annals; but they never
thcless recognized and awaited. them
selves of the advantage of artistic form.
The works of Thucydides. Livy and
"acitus suggest. in the charm of their
,ymmetry and in the majesty of their
mass the architectural effect of an old
Greek temple. Those authors had the
most lively appreciation of arrangement,
fitness and proportion-an ideal, always
in mind. determining the choice of every
word, the place of every detail, and the
order of the whole narrative.
1t is common to speak OF poetic license,
but poetry is by nature thing under
restraint. 1t has no license to sacrifice
the form which is essential to the pres
ervation of its spirit. But the obliga-
ton of that observance was plainly felt
| by all the ancient classical writers of
prose as well as of poetry. 1t followed
that they were especially devoted to the
cult of the ideal. The perfection of
| their form limited their range of sub
jects. They could not condcscend to an
intimate treatment of things below the
| level of lofty style. Consequently
! they transmitted to us modern ira
ditions and conventions against which
we revolt in our desire to leave nothing
intrenchcd by the point of the pen.
The war between the classical and
romantic schools was, however, not pre-
] ClStlN dlOIlP tildJ llilC- 1T WIS IiOG lOI
scientific accuracy and thorOughness
! that the romanticists broke away from
/ the academic restraints of the old school.
/ 1t was rather because thcy had con-
1 ceived new and bolder forms of artistic
! expression. better adapted. as they
/ believed, to 'cmbOdy the thought and
feeling of their time. Their ideal was
10 longer the Greek temple, but the
! Gothic cathedral. Realism, on the
/ other hand. is comparatively Indifferent
/ to demands of art. 1t is concerned with
| the actual. not with the ideal. II would
| portray The truth, not as il exists for
/ ever in the abstract, but as it is pre-
scented with an intermiXturc of error
/ and ugincsS in the facts of life. The
! Greeks were decent even in the nude;
! the modern rcaliSJ is often scandalous
! in full dress. This results sometimes.
/ perhaps. from a mistaken conception of
/ the proper province of the literary art
| iSt and sometimes from an incxcuSablc
| attempt to pandCr to Il pruricnt taste. A
work which is officially impure can not
Oe purely aesthetic.
Science. of course, has its claimS; bGt
the man of letters can not plead the eX-
actions of science in defense of a work
/ of literature. Let the rcaliSt. If he will
not or can not exercise the due mot.-ra-
| ton and reserve of fine art, say once
| for all. IL am not an artist; am only Il
pathologist and have no subject but
disease Then his books might be
| Justly classified, and literature would
be under no compulsion 10 apologize for
their existence. But even the rcalists
affect style. They arc not willing to
admit they write badly. On the con-
trary, they insist that they have intro
duced an improved style-familiar, but
not coarse-morc fluent than the stately
march of classic prose, more natural
than the verbose rhetoric of the roman
ticists. There is, no doubt, Il degree OF
truth in this boast. The ancients did
not enjoy liberty enough. The realists
take too much But we can not regret
that the modern ideal of form lends it.
self SO easily to every shade of express
sion, or that it accommodates itself so
exactly to the incest distinctions of
thought. Still. we would not have it
degraded until it has lost all semblance