The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-11-04
III.

III II ttHDteT On nruOT1CaL LhtuTdLbhl
the author points out that Walter Scott was
all his life a sincere, mildly ~rationalstic
believer in Christianity. entirely unaffected
by the questioning, daring science of his
century. In 1925 he said: There are few,
1 trust, who disbelieve the existence Of a
God; nay, l doubt If at all times and in all
moods any single individual ever adopted
that hideous creed In religion, as in
politics and literature, he never attained
to personal emancipation from the tradi-
ION by which the individual is fettered
from his birth. Mr.. Brandes submits that 1t
is a dangerous thing for a modern author
20 be entirely unaffected by the progress Of
science. If he has not, like Byron, the gift
of divining by a kind of c~lairvoyance what
science ia seeking and a~scertaining, his
works presently fall from the hands of the
cultivated reader, 10 be seized only by
readers who are merely seeking entertain
ment; or they are preserved and bound
by the cultivated readers to be given away
as birthday and Christmas gifts to their
sons and daughters, nephews and nieces.
such has been SCOTS fate. The author
who in the second and third decades Of the
nineteenth century ruled the book market,
whose influence was felt in every country OF
Europe, who in France had imitators like
Alfred de Vigny, Hugo, Merimee, Balzac
and the elder Dumas, in Italy a disciple
like Manzoni, in Germany an intellectual
kinsman like Fouque, in Denmark admirers
and pupils like Paul M0ller. Ingemann n
Hauch, has become. by the silent and in
structive verdict of time, the favorite
author of boys and girls OF II or there
abouts, an author whom all grown up people
have read and no grown up people read
In a chapter on Rural Life and Its
Poetry" our author discusses the paradox
~enunciated and exemplified by Words
worth during the early part Of his literary
career, that there neither is, nor can be, any
essential difference between the language Of
prose and metrical composition. 1t was
W~Ordsworth's theory that the language
spoken by the lowly class which he de-
scibed in some of his early poems was, when
purified from its su ~perficial defects. the best
of all, because such men hourly COM
municate with the best objects from which
the best part of language is originally de-
rived; and because, from their rank in
society, and he sameness and narrow
circle of their intercourse, being less under
the influence Of social vanity, they conve
LntlE rtlllLkF dhu CAiAOtACAAS AA al @A0
u~nelaborated expression" Our author sug-
gests that if this assertion only meant
disapprobation of all the tiresome and fool
ish distortions Of language TO which the
scarcity of rhymes and the lack of the gift
OF rhythm have driven many eminent poets
it would be generally accepted. II is, low
ever, an entirely different meaning which
Wordsworth intended his maxim to convey.
He maintained. not only HI the language
of a large portion Of every good poem must
necessarily, except with reference to the
metre, differ in no respect from that OF good
prose, but likewise that some OF the most
interesting parts OF the very best poems are
found on inspection to be strictly the Ian
guage of prose. For owever lively and
truthful the poets language may be there
cannot be a doubt, says Wordsworth, that
il must. in liveliness and truth. fall far short
of that which is uttered by men in real life;
in other words, il can never surpass, and only
at the best approach, the prose Of reality"
. As our author points out, there is more
than one argument against the extremely
high estimation OF the language of the rural
population which forms Wordsworth's
startling averment. The principal argyll
ment here put forward il that the language
of the peasant, when purified as Words
worth demands from provincial words
and subiectedto the rules Of grammar, ia not
different from that of any other sensible
man except in this. that the peasants ideas
are fewer and more vague. BY reason Of
its inferior degree OF development his mfnd
dwells only on single isolated facts drawn
from his own narrow experience or from
the records of traditional belief, whereas
the educated nan sees the connection
bet things and seeks for universal
avs. Wordsworth was, a. we have seen,
OF the opinion that the best part OF language
is derived from the objects which surround
and occupy the peasant. To this Mr..
Brandes replies that the ideas connected
with food, shelter, safety and comfort are
SURELY not those which provide the hest
mart OF language. Neither does he agree
with Wordsworth when the latter AYERS
that nothing but the infusion OF a certain
degree Of passion into the peasants Ian
R,Iaae is required to entitle IL to be called
poetic: for passion neither creates new
thoughts nor a new provision OF words;
IL only increases the force OF those already
in existence: 1t cannot be expected TO make
the language Of daily intercourse poetry.
when IL Ia hardly capable OF making it
prose. II In plain, indeed, from Words
worth's own vindication OF -naturalism'
that he conTounds two things. namely. prose
and what he calls ordinary language"
terms which he applies Unfortunately.
Mr.. Brandes submits that good prose is
language which has been purified from
the vain and meaningless repetitions,
and the uncertain, hating p~hraseology
which are the inevitable outcome OF the
confusion due to insufficient education.
Wordsworth has too frequently neglected
this purifying process when introducing
dramatic dialogue into his own poems"
In our authors opinion. IL 10 this unfortu-
nate passion for the most grovcilingly
exact imitation which produces the sudden
and dislgreeable transitions from passages
In a noble. elevated style TO passages with
no style A. all: a.. for example. in The
Blind Highland Boy Wordsworth for
get- to ask himself II there are not num-
bers Of COMMON phrases and expressions
which. though they are perfectly allowable
in ~colloquial speech. would produce q most