The New York herald., 1922-03-19

trouble OF choosing concrete terms:
Case. instance. character, nature,
condition. persuasion. degree-but
not proposition, about which / shall
have something to say. Phrases
which Sir Arthur lists as sloppy sub
meaning will be familiar to Ameri-
can readers, these surely: "As re-
CARDS" with respect to-" I'm con-
nection with" According as to
whether" These he finds "perpet-
ually shuffling around in the fog and
cotton wool of abstract terms"
dodgers of directness. as bad as
elegant variations"
For a reason which | think will
address itself 10 many readers this
story is told of Sir Arthur's encoun-
ter with elegant variations in an
essay on Byron submitted to him by
an Oxford undergraduate. I'm an
essay on Byron" he told his class.
Byron is (or should be) mentioned
many times" and proceeds: But
my undergraduate had blushing
sense that to call Byron Byron twice
is indelicate. So Byron. after start
ing bravely as Byron, in the second
sentence turns into that great but
unequal poet Half way down the
page he becomes the gloomy master
of Newstead,' over leaf he is rein
carnated into the meteoric darling
of society," and so proceeds through
successive avatars--'this arch rebel
the author of Childe Harold the
martyr of Missolonghi,' the pageant
monger of a bleeding heart Now
this, again. is jargon."
H.
| would give something fine to be
assured that the above comment on
elegant variations shall be pondered
sympathetically by American writers
on sports. These adopts in varia
tions frustrate efforts TO acquire
knowledge of the subjects they treat
by ringing so many variations on
the names of baseball clubs and
players that only with a glossary in
hand can one learn what nine is at
bat, who makes plays. who assists,
who nips fly off the bleacher fence.
One can worry through foggy word
ing, the cotton wool of abstract
terms for meaning. but how is one
to follow in print baseball plays?
With self-effacing sense of humor
Sir Arthur gives this example of
admirable directness in writing: A
man wrote to him. IRE Tennyson-
your remarks anent In Memoriam'
make me sick" Passing from this
charming book putnam publishes
the Lectures here) let us consult
that joked about but valuable pub
lication, the Congressional Record.
have listened to debates in the
British Parliament and in our Con-
gress. and my judgment was before
putting ii to the test that our leeis-
lators use less jargon than do Brit
ish. Reading of a months file of
the Record confirms that judgment,
although if | had cast five votes
| instead of one in deciding the ques-
tion the tally would have been three
TO two in favor of Washing .on.
Members of Congress. OF the House
especially, speak more nervously,
with more quick fire action and gen
orally more briefly than do members
| of the Commons; notably so in de-
bate, "colloquy." as Capitol Hill has
it. When members are interested
| the give and take is terse. intelligent
and usually free from jargon. II
has become common TO judge all
Congressional speeches by those of
the notoriously long winded speak
ers. so l give these figures to prove
that much debate is brief. On two
consecutive pages of one number of
the Record | counted H. remarks"
by about twenty members. the lively
action allowing no time for WANDER
ing about the subject debated.
When debate slows down. but has
not reached the snail pace of set
speeches, jargon begins to appear in
these phrases: | will say. | wish to
say. would say, let me say this, |
would like to say. Frequently these