CHAPTER I.

THE INTELLECTUAL STYLE.

STYLE may be said to be as diversified as human personality. If, as Buffon tells us, "the style is the man," then the method or manner in which thought may be embodied and verbally expressed may be as varied as are the multiform phases of what we call humanity, or human nature. Some of these bases or principles of classification may here be mentioned.

We may speak of style as conditioned by racial peculiarities. Hence, the North European, as illustrated in the German; the South European, as in the French and Italian. We speak of the classical style of the older empires, as distinct from that of the modern European nations. Literary historians tell us of the Asiatic style; that exuberant, pictorial and florid manner so germane to the Oriental nations, as distinct from the Occidental and more practical peoples. There is a style peculiar to England, as it differs in its national type from America. In the British Isles themselves, the Scotch, the Irish and the English

evince unique phases of expression, growing out of civic and local differences. Mr. Arnold, in his critical writings, is never weary of calling our attention to what he terms the Hellenic style, as distinct from the Hebraic or Palestinean; meaning, by the one, the highly artistic order of the Greek, and, by the other, a more solid and serious type, Judaic in its character.

If, as a further principle, we look at style from the view-point of age or period, we may speak of the ancient, mediæval and modern styles; of the style of the Renaissance in Italy; of that of the era of Louis XIV. in France; and that of the Elizabethan, Augustan, Georgian and Victorian ages, in England.

Emphasizing the names of prominent authors as exponents of separate orders of style, we rightly speak of the Platonic and Ciceronian and Socratic styles; of the Lutheran and Pascalian; of the Baconian, Addisonian and Websterian.

Studying style in the light of structure, motive and spirit, we speak, still further, of the critical and the romantic styles; of the realistic and the imaginative; of the direct and antithetic; of the simple and metaphysical; of the idiomatic and foreign; of style conditioned by personal temperaement, as the mercurial and phlegmatic; of style as lucid, concise, finished, forensic, oratorical, disputative, expository, philosophic and ornate. In fine, style, as suggested, is as varied as the character, ability, experience, engagements and objects of

men; the manifestation of soul and mind and life. in all their possible forms.

There are, however, some types and orders of style that may be said to be standard, fundamental and all-inclusive, and which, as such, deserve a separate discussion at our hands. We shall call them the Intellectual, the Literary, the Impassioned and the Popular; including, respectively, such additional forms as the Critical, the Poetic, the Satirical and the Humorous. They may be said to represent, respectively, intelligence, taste, feeling and pleasure. Each will be seen to have its own well-defined area and object, while they together make up the sum-total of what is called style, in literary art.

THE INTELLECTUAL STYLE.

Prof. Bain, in a recent treatise on discourse, dwells at length on the Intellectual Elements of Style. Prof. Bascom, of our own country, has written an able volume on the "Philosophy of Style," following the line of discussion opened up for him by Herbert Spencer, of England. Such writers as Schlegel, in his "Philosophy of Language;" Campbell, in his "Philosophy of Rhetoric," and Lord Kames, in his treatise on Criticism, have represented and developed this intellectual feature of style.

The very definition of discourse, with which we must begin all discussion, would seem to demand the admission of this view. We define it as the

expression of thought, the outer form in which ideas are presented. Apart from the presence and prominence of such inherent ideas, behind all outer presentation, there is no occasion for expression. To write, Max Müller would say, is "to think verbally." He would call expression, the "science of thought," applied as an art; a thinking with pen in hand, as we contemplate the oral utterance of our ideas. There is a true sense, therefore, in which it may be said that the wordsstyle and intellect—are mutually inclusive and explanatory, so that, in every worthy act of expression, they must go together. It was this exalted view of the nature and function of style that De Quincey so strongly held and so ably exemplified. It is thus that his writings, miscellaneous as they are, are freighted with meaning and to him who carefully reads them must minister mental strength and richness.

We are now prepared to state and explain the two or three cardinal characteristics of the style before us.

I. Emphasis of Subject Matter over Form. The great question with the intellectual writer is, How can the truth be made intelligible? How can the minds of readers be most effectually reached and the importance of what is written be seen for its own intrinsic merit, rather than because presented by this or that author, in this or that manner?

Such a writer feels, first of all, that he must have

a clear and full perception of the truth to be communicated; must be profoundly convinced of the fact that it is the truth, and be inflamed with a fervent desire to make it known for the well-being of others. Such a style is based on the essential value of the truth as independent of any worth that may lie in the special exposition of it and is never so well satisfied as when the writer is lost in the writing.

Historical style, when expressed in its highest forms, is essentially intellectual. Its basis is truth. Its object is instruction. Its methods are logical and rational, and its pervading spirit, love of the truth for the truth's sake and for what it may accomplish on behalf of others. Mr. Grote's "History of Greece;" Thomas Warton's "History of English Poetry;" Froude's "History of England;' Schlegel's "History of Philosophy; " Hallam's "History of Literature" and Shedd's "History of Christian Doctrine" are such histories, affording conspicuous examples of style as intellectual. If we compare such treatises with Macaulay's "History of England;" McCarthy's "History of Our Own Times" and McMaster's " History of the People of the United States," we see, at once, the striking difference in favor of the former on the ground of their superior intellectuality. They are more than simple narratives—a pleasing and facile recital of events. They make us think as we read them. They stir within us the best judgment that we have and lead us on from sequence to sequence