The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-05-07
GRANT AS A wRIgER.


Among the tributes paid to the departed
worth of Grant on the 9th uls., probably
few of the orators noted tia fact that
Grants Memoirs, written hsstily with
the shadow of fast cc.uing deara obscuring
the light in which he wrote. have endured
the test of time and ere still III remunera-
tive demand after nearly eight years OF ex-
traordinary sale. Grants Memoir"
continue to sell because they ere clearly
his own work. They are written in the
clear, plain. direct, simple style that marks
all his military reports; his correspondence
with Sherman, Lincoln, Hallerk and STAN
ton. There is no pinsing for pet words;
no feeling for and fondline of favorite
phrases. and . precision in the art OF
English composition. or q psdagogue,
literary critic or fu,cal pulr:teer would
find it easy to convics Grant Of loose and
careless grammatical construction; for he
was an Indifferent master o. the art of
elegant construction and tie trick OF
phrase making.
The earmarks in Grants b9ok are I'M
mistakable. His uttsr uncona;ern for the
rhetorical balance Ct q sentence when he
was satisfied that il clearly and exactly
expressed his thoughts il q CHARACTERISTIC
utterly foreign to the professional mill
tary historians" whu beat TIE rhetorical
''long roll" from the beginning to the end
of their books. Grant without trying to
write in q rhetorical or classical style was
IN excellent writer IN the great essentials
of good writing, although ne commits
many trivial sins OF grammatical omission
and commission that . scholastic scribe
would be sure to avoid.
In its striking merits and its incense
quentiai defects ''Gfant's Memoirs" were
at once recognized to be clesrly the work
of his own strong iyut unprecticed hand;
admirable in his simplicity tsrant was in
different to rhetorical mechanism and
literary art. Grant was nos destitute Of
literary culture. but it was that kind Of alb
solutely English culture, as distinguished
from classical culture, that made John
Bright great popular tribune in England.
Bright knew no Latin or Greek. His
mind was as free from classical Journalism
and color as was shat of his great friend
Golden. or Horace Greeley. or Lincoln or
Grant, and they we're all q. free a. their
great master and teacher in sweet, strong,
sound, simple English, William Shak-
spears.
Grant was q notable illustration Of tho
nonsense of the theory of ae.demical edu-
cation which declares that classical in
struction is essentini and desirable for an
able and versatile expression Of the
English tongue. i ne truth is Just the
other way. Gladstone was always in-
ferior to. Bright as popular tribune. be-
cause he was ham pered ana crippled by
his Oxford culture. Cotden. who as
. commercial traqeler in his youth,
read the best English books. mas
tered his native tongus 30 thor.
oughly that though he spoke in .
conversational toas always commanded
tho closest attention. There 10 vast diff.
ference between snan who has the gift to
write well. that is. she gift of the power of
expression, and q man wao lacks the
power Of expressions. but haa . pedagogue's
knowledge Of correct grammatical con.
struction. Byron Is very rocky" in his
grammar, but his literary genius, his
power Of expression 10 so 81 !eudid that We
have small patience with or love for the
| scholastic critics 10 arc never weary Of
quoting Byron's grammatical errors with
absolute insensibiiisy to his extraordinary
literary power Of e. preston.
A great writer is one thing = rhetorician,
a mere grammatical phrase picker is
quite another thiag. Grars. like Byron,
was not always gEammatig Al, but in the
essentials of good writing. che gift of clear
and vigorous expression, lie was q better
writer than the mos: erzinent of his
scholastic critics.