Page images
PDF
EPUB

to date. These special essays also demonstrate the fact that, with rare exceptions, if any, no greater authors ever lived than live now.

THIRDLY, we classify under appropriate heads the most reliable information to be obtained on a very wide range of subjects, and in this way make the book a veritable mine of thought, some part of which will be intensely interesting to any one, and all parts to most people. Thus the matter included is of the highest value for its own sake, without the unique features of literary criticism.

FOURTHLY, we prepare as a supplement, a Symposium of the Principles of Literature, comprising a complete analysis of Rhetoric, Logic, Mental Philosophy, Moral Science, Philology, Anthropology, and other branches pertaining to the expression of thought, and each one of all this accumulation of terms is defined in popular language. They are then numbered seriatim, and made to serve as a key to unlock the literary gems given throughout the volume, by simply sprinkling reference figures all through the text, referring the reader to the Symposium. The Symposium notes and defines the principle involved, and every portion of the text referring thereto exemplifies that principle.

Technical terms have been handled in a popular way, and it has been kept steadily in mind that the book is intended for the masses. The divisions of the book are logical and comprehensive, and each is supplied with suitable articles, both in prose and poetry, serious and humorous, in addition to which the whole volume is highly seasoned with laconics, many of which are made illustrative of some principle of literature in its many-phased task of expressing thought.

We ask the reader's careful attention to quotation marks, that credit may be given to us as authors for only that which is original. For the gems of thought so aptly expressed by the hundreds of authors quoted, we have provided only the appropriate setting, and for the flowers of poesy bound in these leaves of literature, we have contributed only their harmonious arrangement according to color of sentiment, and furnished the silken cord to retain them.176

NOTE.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF EXPRESSION.

The following is a lecture delivered by the Joint Author, Professor Hialmer D. Gould, before various colleges and popular audiences, and it is introduced here as the most fitting method of opening the way for the unique treatment given to the subject matter throughout this volume. The advantage of the references to the Symposium will be greatly enhanced by a careful consideration of the Philosophy of Expression as here set forth, and an occasional re-reference from the Symposium to the examples herein cited may be made with much benefit.

My Friends, you noticed that I hesitated for a moment before speaking. What was your expression, and what mine, at that moment? Simply this: By rising and coming forward, I expressed intention. You, by your silence and look of expectancy, expressed attention. There is tention on the part of both, but mine is positive or active; yours negative or passive. I am to give; you are to receive. Kindly continue this passive but thoughtful attention that you may receive all that I intend to give.

Let us now, in fancy, take a short excursion down the street, to note the various expressions that may come under our observation. That aged man, though walking erectly, bows his head slightly forward. That head is not empty that heart is not vain. His tread is firm, his carriage dignified, expressing the fact that he has not wasted his strength in riotous living. His clear complexion shows temperance, his open countenance shows honesty, and his clean cut features express refinement. He crosses the street and his glance toward the approaching car means caution. We might follow this one man for hours, and find some new expression shot forth from his being as each new incident arrests his attention. But let us study the incidents ourselves.

A brutal driver belabors his stubborn mule, and each is fast making the other worse. A spectator shouts a warning note and the cudgel is dropped. A kill-sheep dog sneaks by. He knows that he has done wrong, and he sneaks by, head and

tail hanging low. All the other dogs give chase. Even dogs understand that expression. A flock of children come pouring from the schoolhouse. Some show fight, some show fear. How do they show it? One little girl dries her own tears and struggles bravely to console her smaller sister sympathy, fortitude; the stuff that heroes are made of. The confidence man buncoes the farmer and then "divvies up" with his pal honor among thieves. The Mayor tells the police captain not to know too much about a certain dive ignorance in high places. You see yonder couple, and you say they are lovers. You feel sure you have sized them up correctly. But how do you know they are lovers? You say they act spooney. But what is it to act spooney? Alas, nearly all expressions are more easily recognized than described. We can read the character denoted by the actions, but we can't always spell out the elements that constitute the acts.

Even language plays us false; the same word being sometimes literal, sometimes figurative, sometimes technical, sometimes common parlance, sometimes downright slang. Sometimes the skater skates, and the drunkard staggers; but the next moment you may be confronted by some poor skater who is making a stagger at it, and an otherwise poor drunkard who has got a skate on him.

The lightning struck a tree; the ship struck her colors; the soldiers struck their tents; the laborers struck for higher wages; the robbers struck for tall timber; an idea struck a philosopher; the miner struck pay dirt; the show struck the town; my erstwhile acquaintance struck me for a dollar; the actress is stage struck, and the dandy is struck on himself.

Besides the expressions of language and expressions of countenance and of actions, we must consider expressions of inanimate objects. Thus the oak tree expresses sturdy strength, while the vine entwined around it expresses dependence. The rocky bluff expresses boldness and durability; the mountains, grandeur. And so the list might be extended indefinitely, for everything expresses something.

In this rambling way, we might go on for hours, noting expressions and their meaning; but unless we seek for some

principle of classification, and arrange our knowledge according to some method or system, we shall be wholly unable to appreciate and use properly the knowledge we have gained. All our inquiries merely result in an accumulation of facts and fancies a mass of expression, but no philosophy.

Now the basic principle of classification for every subject that will admit of its use is the principle of cause and effect. We ask why this, and why that, and why the other, until by continued interrogations we have discovered similar causes for various effects. All the sciences have been built up in that way. Science is simply classified knowledge.459 Every philosopher who has thoroughly investigated any branch of human knowledge has grown into a human interrogationpoint. A scientist is personified quiz.

Following this lead, we now seek to discover the philosophy of expression. We have already noted that every person and every thing expresses something, and we are not long in observing that some objects express many things; and finally we note, what is very important in this connection, that objects do not express the same thing to all persons. Two persons witness the same occurrence, and one of them may receive an entirely different impression from that received by the other. This leads us to inquire into the matter subjectively, as well as objectively. If the object is the same and the impression is different in two different persons who are brought under the influence of that object, it is manifest that there must be a difference in the subjects. We then take another step backward in the chain of causation, and ask ourselves why an object does make any impression at all. Also, why does a person, as a subject, receive any impression at all. The basis of all human knowledge is, therefore, the starting point from which to discover the philosophy of expression. There could be no such thing as expression without the existence of beings capable of receiving impressions. This presents both the objective and the subjective view of the question.

Since all expression, to be intelligible, must be reducible to some form of human thought, it is evident that the science which deals with the formal laws of human thought is our

basis. Logic433 is that science. Furthermore, logic shows, as other mental sciences also show, that human knowledge consists of comparisons. We begin by comparing some two ideas and we have a subject and a predicate -the simplest expression possible and the simplest form of stating it. Without going into tedious details, let me add that all human knowledge, however complicated, however profound, is but an aggregation of comparisons. This being true, it is evidently the criterion by which we are to judge any system of philosophy that purports to explain the infinite variety of forms in which thought is expressed.

We now proceed to test this principle. We shall cite a great variety of expressions literal expressions, figurative expressions; weak expressions, forcible expressions; elegant expressions, and some that are not so elegant; expressions with style and expressions without style; humorous expressions, witty expressions, slang expressions; expressions of thought, and expressions of feeling, or sentiment, or emotion; expressions of art, expressions of nature; expression in prose, expression in poetry; and every sample adduced shall be squared up by this all-pervading principle, COMPARISON, and if all varieties or methods of expression will stand plumb on that foundation, we shall be warranted in the conclusion that we have discovered the true philosophy of expression?

It will not be necessary to dwell long on literal expressions. Two ideas are mentioned together and if they are found to harmonize, we assert one of the other. But how do we know they harmonize? Manifestly by comparing them. If our comparison discloses that they do not harmonize, we assert that one is not the other. In other words, when the subject and the predicate are congruous we have an affirmative proposition; but when the subject and predicate are incongruous, we have a negative proposition. But how can we decide the question of congruity? Only by comparing one concept with the other.

For example: Man is mortal; Iron is heavy; Snow is white; Man is not omnipotent; Iron is not transparent; Snow is not liquid.

« PreviousContinue »