The sun., 1916-11-16

4
dealing with cryptic subjects, they
may win the favor Of the unthinking; !;
| witness, in the brain carpentry Of
metaphysics. the verbal manGuvres of
three such lucid though disparate
| thinkers as Schopenhauer, Nietzsche
and William James. The names Of
| these three writer's are adduced as
evidence that it Is not necessary to
| be foggy OF style even when deal
| ing with abstract ideas. And Ger
many has long been the Nibelheim OF
philosophy; need we mention Hegel.
whose commentators have made his
meanings thrice confounded? style In
| literature is an antiseptic. II may
| embalm foolish flies in its amber.
/ and 1t is brevet of Immortality
that is. as immortality goes. a brief
thing. but IA mans boast. When the
shoeblack part of the affair is over
and done with, the grammar. which
| was made for schoolmarms In male
garb. and the shining rhetoric. what
remains? The answer is eternal:
Style cannot be taught. A good style
| Is direct, plain and simple. The writ
cr's Keyboard Is that humble camel the
| dictionary. Style. being concerned with
the process of movement, has nothing
TO do with results. says one authority.
And an impertinent collusion on the
part OF the writer with his own indi-
viduality does not always constitute
style: for individual opinion is virtu-
ally private opinion. Notwithstanding
its appearance in editions half a hun
dred long; Sainte Beuve and De
Quincy here occur to the memory.
Men change; mankind never.
Too close imitation of the masters
has its dangers for the novice.
| Apes and peacocks beset the way.
Stevenson's prose style is highly
synthesized and mosaic Of dead
! mems manners. He has no esoteric
message beyond the expression Of his
spritelike. whimsical personality, and
this expression is In the main con-
summate. The lion in his pathway
is the thinness OF his intellectual
processes; as in DE Quincey's case. a
master Of the English language be-
| yond compare, who in the region of
pure speculation often goes sadly
f, limping: his criticism OF Kant proves
ii. But a music maker in our written
| speech superior to Ruskin and not
| more than one degree below the arch
angel of prose. John Milton. Robert
Louis stevenson is the supreme mock
ing bird in English literature. lie over
played the seduous imitator. John Jay
Chapman in "A brilliant essay has
traced the progress of this prose pill
grim, a professional stylist as we'll as
critic registers the variations in style
and sensihilty Of the Scotsman. who
did not always demonstrate in his
! writing the fundamental idea that the
sole exponent Of sensbility is analytic
! power. He drew freely on all his
! predecessors. and his personal charm
exhibits the glue Of unanimty." as
old Boethius would say. Mr.. chapman
| quotes passage supposedly from Sir
, Thomas Browne, beginning Time
sadly overcometh all things which
| Is not to he found in his collected
| writings. Yet il is apropos because,
! like Stevenson's prose. IL Is from the
| Crucible of an alchemist. though at
the time Mr.. Chapman quoted 1t was
not known TO be clever I.iverpudiian
! forgery. Since then after consider
able controversy the paragraph in
question has been shown as the fabri-
! cation OF Liverpool man Of letters,
whose name we have forgotten. But
| IL suggests, does this false Browne,
that good prose may te successfully
simulated. though essentials he miss
| ing.
II style cannot hc impaired. what,
| then, is the next best thing to do.
! after a close study of the masters?
/ We should say, go in "A chastened mood
| to the nearest newspaper office and
apply for a humble position on its
| staff, Then one will come tn grips with
! life. tho pacemaker of style. There
! is lot Of pompous advice emitted
| by the college profcssor-thc Eternal
! Sophomore about fleeing journal
esc": whereas it is in the daily press,
! whether New York, Paris. Vienna or
, London. that one may find the sound
cst. most succinCt prose, prose stripped
of superi'uous ornament. prose bare to
the bone in fighting trim. But not
I elevated prose, numerous" prose, as
| ouintilian hath IT, For the supreme
harmony of English prose We must go
! To the lbliIS 'lHe -NutIl'llH'u' i'l Nii'
Revised. the latter manufactured by
| the persons called revisers.' as
George Sain,sbury bluntly describes
theml; to Shakespeare. Jeremy Tay-
! lor, Sir Thomas Browne. Walter RAJ
| leigh. Milton. De Quincy, Ruskin,
| Swinhurnc. Cardinal Newman, Pater
| and Arthur Symons Nor are these
! oxronents Of the grand manner, of an
| ornate style. to hc servi!ely patterned
| after. If elevation of theme Is not
present tlrn the peril of fine writing
! is scarcely To be avoided. Better fol-
low such writers as Bacon. Bunyan,
Hobbies, Swift in preference. or the
Ausustan group, Dryden, Addison,
! Shaftcsbury and Temple, But DR..
Johnson, Burke and Gihbon arc not
models for the beginner. any more than
! the orotund prose of Bossuet, the har-
monious utterance OF chateaubriand or
| the dramatic prose Of Hugo are safe
models for French students, The rich
confluence of F'laubcrt. the stipplcd
| Concison Of Merimee or the dry sherry
! yit OF Noltairc are surer guides. And
the urhanc ease and flowing rhythms
! of Thackeray are preferable To the
, ,baphometic verbal baptsms OF Carlyle
| the Boanerges.
! Yet what sweet temptations are tn
/ he found in the golden age of English
prose, beginning with the cvocation of
Sir Walter Raleigh, "b eloquent, just
! and mighty death, whom none could
advise, thou hast persuaded; surely
not far beneath the magnificent prose