San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1897-11-21


his directness as another would
with indirectness. His question,
ers always found this gu
tiers and framed questions, as verbal
traps, to catch him and condemn him
| out of his own mouth. He had the
art of putting things to them, so as to
confuse them, impaling them on either
horn of the dilema in a way that ad-
mitted of no reply, and thus their traps
We're sprung by their own acts. Per-
haps his distinguishing mark was his
habit of discarding all qualifying
| words. He came so close to the cen
tire of things that he had no need OF
qualifying phrases. He was direct.
With him yea was yea, nay was nay
There was no need of more. He could
not have done with less. To say a
thing was to say it and mean it. He
would not swear to it. To him and
| with him an oath was a senseless
| thing. There was method in it. II
what was said was true, then the yea
was yea, to which no oath or quail
fication could add. Just so if the nay
was nay. But if the yea was not yea,
then no oath could make it so, no quail
ification change it. There was a SIM
pie dignity in this standing upon the
solid foundation Of straightforward
assertion that the world has not appre-
ciated. The Friends, usually called
Quakers have come into much of the
same form of speech. There is some
thing grand in this directness, naked
ness of speech. But 1t needs an idea
under it to be so.
Nazarine would have made. What a
style he would have taught. What a
change he would have wrought in the
construction of modern sentences.
What an advantage to the literature
of the day. What a pattern for the
orator, the poet, the philosopher, the
advocate, the preacher, the jurist
How much of modern phrase would
survive the severe trimming that this
style would demand. Cut out Of
modern speech, modern writing, mod
ern assertion all but the simple yea
and nay of fact and what would be
left. Pith and point would take the
place of platitude; interest would sup
plant insipidity; verbal rinds would
peel off and the naked pulp of truth
would be shown. 1t would be a mar
velous change, but the world of fact
and letters would alike be the gain
ers.
1t may be objected to this style, that
it would destroy the inventive facul-
ty. Perhaps so. When one reads
the fruitful inventions of the present,
as paraded in the published columns of
all papers and pages in all lands, one
comes to see that no greater good
could come to the literary style of this
age than a return, for a generation, to
the Yea! veal! and the Nay! Nay!! of
the old Galilean teacher. Old only in
the age in which he lived. New in his
methods, new in his ideas, new in his
originality, new in his directness,
new product of an old cult, that aston
ished the old doctors who had taught
it for ages and drew down upon him
their dire displeasure. He taught moth
ing because it was old. Rejected
nothing because it was new. All was
measured in his Yea. and Nay!
What would society be today if the
old measure was restored? What
would the fisherman and the prospec-
tor and the racounter do If there was
a strict adherence to the old pattern
of speaking? The world of fact would
gain, but what loss in the trimmings.
Half the pleasure of fishing would be
gone if a fellow had to confine himself
to the bare catch. What would be
the pleasure in having the last whack
at the yarn, that keeps growing from
the time it leaves the prolific lips of
the initial liar until the last one rounds
it up, if only truth was to be spoken.
True, all this sportive form Of words
would be lost, but it would be a small
loss lined up along side of what would
be gained. The pulpit and the bar
and the correspondent might squeal at
being confined to the facts, but the
world would gain.
What would the fellow on the stump,
the congressional candidate, or the po-
itician in search of an office, what
would any of these do if there was on
ly the purest truth admissible? 1t
would be the same in the school, in
college, at home, around the sewing
circle, behind the counter, at the bank,
race track, the poker table. What a
world of things would be changed if
only the verbal revolution was usher
ed in the yea, yea, Of actual fact
were uttered. Talk of the revolution
in the political world or the scientific
world, they would not be in it with the
changes that would be Immediately
ushered in with this revolution. Let
the revolted province of statement be
restored to it's allegiance to truth and
the old world would not know itself.
What a change in our homes if this
yea! and nay! business came into gen.
eral acceptance. There would be an
end to the latch key necessity, for
there would be nothing covered that
would not be revealed as to what kept
pater familias out until three in the
morning. There@would be no more
scared and terror stricken faces cover
ing themselves under the bedclothes,
for fear of the "gobble uns who ketch
you if you don't watch out" Nurse
maids would be handicapped beyond
mortal recovery. Wallets would no
longer pay the heavy premium for the