Obrázky stránek

and discoveries, is common property, but which is so elaborate as of itself to disthat the style, that is the order and move- close the Greek simplicity as simplificament which one puts into his thoughts, be- tion, and, on the other, the fundamental longs to the author alone, is his personal interplay of majestic forces that constiproperty.” That is obviously not an ob- tutes the beauty as well as the grandeur of servation about style in general, since it is the loveliest as well as the most monustrictly confined to a style in particular. mental Gothic. The difference between It does not assert that there is no such the two styles could not be greater, but it thing as style in general. It does not is not more marked than the identical assert that the style is the writer's per- element of style in both. As an individual sonal expression--merely that it is within artist conceives and executes his work in his personal control in a sense in which his own manner, each of them reflects the data and discoveries are not. The style taste, the tone, the ideals, the character of he is speaking of, moreover, is the style of its own age and clime, but, like the indithe book, not the author's style in general, vidual artist whose work as well as being not his characteristic manner if he has personal is marked by the impersonal one, instinctive and particular. Quite quality of style, both Greek and Gothic independently of the writer's tempera- architecture do not merely embody the ment he goes on, in true eighteenth-cen- characteristic manner of thought and feeltury fashion, to prescribe the different ing of their respective periods and counkinds of style appropriate to different tries--one of philosophic calm, the other kinds of topics. The sentence glossed by of energetic aspiration. In addition, both the context, in fact, is as far as possible are interpenetrated with the spirit of from meaning that style is nothing more order and movement, of abstract form than the idiosyncrasy of the writer mani- vivifying concrete expression by pouring fested in his writing.

into it the universal elements of harmony Architecture furnishes an illuminating, and rhythm, and thus not alone renderif approximate, illustration of the two ing the Parthenon and Amiens-saydifferent uses of the word “style.” There vibrant with the mutual relations of their is a not too fanciful analogy between its structural parts, but carrying into the condifferent "styles” and the personal man- formation of all these details some subtly ner of the individual artist in all the arts. formative sense of the whole which they The several styles express each the tem- compose, and by which in turn they themperament of its time, as the artist's man- selves are consecrated with the chrism of ner does his own. Yet they would cer- style. tainly never have risen into existence as It would have much chagrined such a styles, would never have achieved their precisian as Buffon to have his incidental own centrality and coherence, if they had remark about a man's style being his own not been inspired, each individual style in in contradistinction to the material that its own degree, with that spirit of style he shares with others, taken for a definiconceived as a universal æsthetic ele- tion of style. He could hardly have comment which, besides crystallizing each into prehended such placid ignoring of the fact its own unity, makes it architecture as that he had already given and was exwell as a style. Indeed the weakness of pounding an altogether different theory Renaissance, for example, as architecture and one quite insusceptible of being reis what saps its strength as a style; just garded as sanction for a go-as-you-please as the absence of style leaves the indi- theory of literary composition-obviously vidual artist's manner structureless and, ridiculous in any one of the rest of the as an instrument, uncertain. Nothing seven arts. To have declared that a could be more diverse to the eye than writer should put himself, rather than Greek and Gothic. The simplicity of one order and movement, into his thoughts seems almost cellular; the complexity of would have been to cancel the Discourse. the other, elaborately organic as far as the On the other hand a writer's manner, the eye can trace the detail of the struc- personal strain in his style, is so importure. Yet remark on the one hand the tant that, dealing with it at all, to have mere nomenclature of the trabeated style, dealt with it only in an incidental interpolation, would have been practically as more useful.” Mr. Tomlinson is “really absurd as to assert that a writer has only a writer," and perhaps he "just has" his to express himself naturally to do so with gift of style. But apparently he just style. He may have a natural aptitude doesn't have it always. Very likely he for expressing himself with style. But has it oftener when he has something to this will be a natural aptitude for order tell than when he has, as here, something and movement and not an aptitude for to say; the two genres differ in difficulty. being natural. Buffon and his century And he is so delightful when he does have before him dealt little with natural apti- it that from our point of view he could tudes, and presupposed intelligence, as hardly be employed at anything more useevolution has since presupposed proto- ful than in being concerned about it. plasm. Even Rousseauism and the gos- Why in any case should he discourage pel of human perfectibility contemplated others? If style be a vice, how should it be man's nature as plastic rather than as pre- the only one that can't be acquired ? established. The self-contradiction in- As to a man's not knowing he has any volved in associating nature, in which in- style when he does have it, we should tention is absent, and art, in which it is hardly know what Mr. Tomlinson means vital, so closely as to deem their essence if in so many quarters just now there were identical, is one of the paradoxes of more not observable such a light-hearted zest recent times.

in playing the game of existence blindThe quality of naturalness indeed often fold-consciousness, formerly defined as shows as few traces of personality as of "the light of all our seeing," having fallen style. Since, for example, some of the into such disrepute, if not “every day, in wildest idiosyncrasies, so called, have been every way," still often and variously. disclosed as due to "group consciousness” Only blindly, one would say, can many of -not to say "mob psychology"—it has the self-styled temperamental players debeen more difficult to revere eccentricity velop the confidence needed to sustain a as self-expression. The traits of a per- morale to which mere presumption must sonality saturated with the mimetic may prove a broken reed. The mood of the be better sought in the model than in the moment, perhaps more exactly than the mimic. They lose their tang in trans- spirit of the times, is so adventurous and mission. The naturalness of the parrot irresponsible as to have given the abhorred and the mocking-bird is personality at one name of “repression" to the old “archremove, and what Echo sighs to us from enemy of mankind” and exalted the subsome distant isle is, alas, what we have liminal self to the position of guardian already heard! Personality is minimized angel. Accordingly philosophy of the unthus in naturalness of a certain order- conscious, now under such full sail, seems the naturalness of a natural born natural, also bound for such ports as may be disfor example; it needs acquisitions of its covered under a roving commission. Mr. own to round out instinct into character. Santayana is perhaps the last philosopher Of course there are other varieties. Mr. whom one should expect to remind us of H. M. Tomlinson, of the London Nation Scott's remark to Lockhart: “I fear you and the author of charming books, was have some very young ideas in your recently quoted as asserting in dogmatic, head." Yet where either art or woman is in fact, in Dogberry, vein that "a literary concerned, how forego the advantages of style is not, as some fond critics imagine, a young ideas? His declaration, “Art is deliberately acquired vice. A man just like a charming woman, who once had her has it. When he is really a writer he does age of innocence in the nursery, when she not know he has any style. He has some- was beautiful without knowing it, being thing to say; and he says it in the only wholly intent on what she was making or way that comes easy to him”-cruelly telling or imagining," sounds, accordingly, regardless of the hard reading thus made less like a master, than like a bachelor, according to Sheridan's sadly true obser- of arts-at any rate, the arts of design, vation. “Only those writers are con- whether plastic or feminine. The precerned about their style,” he sternly adds, cautionary words “nursery” and “when “who should be employed at something she was beautiful without knowing it”

naturally imply an infancy fairly inarticu- plies emphasis and underlines whatever late, but one imagines that, in either case, it expresses. Hence we can more disarticulate adolescence has more than a tinctly in Carlyle's case than in most vague notion of what it is about, and that others recognize the several expressions process as well as substance shared the of his genius; that is to say, his energy, intention of early art, as well as that of genius being, as Arnold says, “mainly an the youthful artist to whom Mr. San- affair of energy.” Again we can more tayana refers. Consciousness of how and easily discriminate his manner from his whether they were succeeding, and ob- style not only because both have so vious inferences therefrom, must have much relief, but because we can catch his attended effort where attainment is predi- manner almost in the act of invading cated on aim; and subsequent progress, at his style. Partly this was chronological; all events, could hardly have proceeded in other words, exhibited a tendency that from aimless groping. The untrained and grew upon him. But partly also it was up-to-date boy who, occupied in drawing an infiltration of his conscious art by his on his slate a figure which he said repre- personal whim, owing to his release of the sented God, replied to an objection that latter by raising the flood-gates of his no one knew how he looked, “Well

, they restraint, as he conceived occasion to call will when I get this done,” demanded too for it; the style of the “Sterling," for exmuch credulity. The pleistocene mam- ample, is simple, tranquil, and altogether moth outline is more authentic and doubt- on a more elevated plane than that of the less more admirable and, particularly, earlier “Sartor.” At the same time Fitzmore skilful than automatic improvisa- james Stephen would not have chosen a tion. In any case, in all art, early or late, passage from it, as he did from "Sartor," the element of style is of too universal to set against a passage from Mill, illussubstance and application to be identified trating, as he said, the genius of the greatwith the individuality of whose intelligent est poet of his age contrasted with that expression it is clearly and consciously, of the greatest logician. And I think myeven when instinctively, an instrument- self that perhaps we could better dispense when indeed it is not, as in some instances with those works of Carlyle in which style seemingly it is, an end in itself. And it predominates than those which his perhad certainly much better be an end in sonality saturates. Still, one gets a little itself, subordinating all personality and tired of this latter, and it was doubtless achieving at least an ordered and rhyth- thinking of it that led Mr. W. B. Yeats to mic result, than illustrate the kind of feel- speak of some one's “harsh voice” giving, ing and functioning to be associated with in reading it aloud, “almost a quality of unconsciousness,

style to Carlylian commonplace." There Personality in a work of art being, as is nothing restful in tireless tumultuoushas been aptly observed, not what you ness. The victim's personality wearies put in but what you can't leave out, style the reader. One would prefer a victormay, precisely, be taken as what on the self-control, as spectacle, always outshinother hand (as Buffon asserted) you put ing the loss of it; except with the “ecin. But, necessarily, what you can't leave stasists !” out colors to a certain, or rather an uncer- Thackeray's exclamation, “I wish he tain, extent what you put in, and accord- would hang up his d-d old fiddle,” is a ingly personality shows in, but is not, comprehensible cry of protest against too your style—any more than your clothes much personal expression, against the which you select are how you wear them. tune rather than the instrument. Taine's No more capital example of the distinc- preference of “Esmond” over and almost tion between manner and style need be to the exclusion of the rest of his work witsought than that furnished by the writ- nesses the same weariness in Thackeray's ings of Carlyle, rich in both elements. own case. In the case of genius-scarcely Everything is energy in Carlyle. Energy less rare than miracle--one can hardly deis as apparent in the restraint of the elegy cide. Here one hesitates to exalt style at on Edward Irving as in the extravagance the expense of manner, and may settle the of “Shooting Niagara.” And energy im- difficulty by breathing a wish that the manner of both Thackeray on occasion which facetiousness is as characteristic as and Carlyle often had been less mannered. caricature is of his characters. Both these Personality is the irreducible element in defects of his qualities of vitality and the incomprehensible phenomenon of imagination have been obstacles to Dickgenius. Thackeray and Carlyle are, for ens's attaining rank as an artist commenus at any rate, of even greater interest surate with his fairly wonderful genius; than their style, than their art. At least and it is only since art has suffered its Thackeray's style and art owe a large present eclipse in the shadow of genius, part of their charm to his own extraordi- real or imagined, that lovers of paradox nary personal appeal. But the vast field like Mr. Chesterton, and detached temperof literary and ästhetic interest rewards aments like Mr. Santayana, have found it consideration of the rule rather than of piquant to minimize or ignore-or vaunt the exception among its figures and their them. Also the current revival of infunctioning, when we are dealing with terest in Dickens shown by our younger principles, even though Kant's“universal writers may be due, as well as to the atnorm” may here be unattainable. There traction of novelty inherent in rehabilitais also this to be observed of the personal- tions, to a fellow-feeling on the part of our ity of genius: that its superior interest, its own facetiousness—which has been called signal fascinations, being less compre- the curse of the country. One may doubt hensible in all their fulness to other gen- nevertheless if he is read as much as he is erations than they are to their own, must lauded. Temperamental similarity may inevitably merge with their contempora- warm in idea to what would bore it in ries of lesser eminence as both recede into fact-one of those phenomena which the past, aside from the new competitions Carlyle, when too full for utterance, used they must sustain when Bacon's "next to call “significant of much.” Our time ages” with a different succession of cloud- and our country, especially since our capped peaks and sunlit summits come social development has reached its presinto view. Then, indeed, manner may ent flourishing phase, seem peculiarly sencongratulate itself on having at whatever sitive to the satisfactions, than which sacrifice clothed itself in style. Style will we certainly find few more intimate, of commend it to the posterity that its what is too brutally known as “raising a manner may conceivably chill and con- laugh.” The English, who savor these fuse. Its style will be the language of satisfactions less, we accuse, not altoposterity also, however different its taste, gether humorously, of lacking either its fashions. It was really Thackeray's humor or the sense of it. We have a manner, not his style, that Mr. Max Beer- slight feeling as if of injury at their rebohm meant when he said it was “getting fusal, or estrangement at what we fancy a little eighteen-sixty.” Of his style, the their inability, to play with us. Dickens, "perfection" of which Carlyle called un- however, ought to be a bond between us. rivalled “in our day,” Mr. Beerbohm says The facetiousness which, whether for in exquisite style of his own: “He blew on good or ill, is one of our national traits his pipe and words came tripping around and which, as one may say, has infiltrated him, like children, like pretty little chil- our national style, certainly dictated the dren who are perfectly drilled for the order and movement which he put into dance; or came, did he will it, treading in his thoughts, to an extent that makes his their precedence, like kings, gloomily.” manner so markedly mannerism as pracOrder and movement could not be more tically to identify it with his style. The specifically signalized-or exemplified. ideal in his case would be the converse pro

On the other hand, when Thackeray re- cedure-style invading manner so as to marked, “I may quarrel with Mr. Dick- minimize mannerism. ens's art a thousand and a thousand times; Absolutely to proscribe mannerism is, I delight and wonder at his genius,” he surely, pedantry. In the hands, or rather undoubtedly meant, in large part, that in the fibre, of an instinctive artist it is Dickens's art was disfigured by manner- precisely the element needed to set the isms—that his manner, in other words, final touch on manner itself, to add the dominated and distorted his style, of flavor to the confection, to endue the manner that expresses the artist's indi- The same effect I recall obtained by viduality with the personal reminder of in- Mark Twain at a dinner given to Mr. timacy which endears—unless, as of course Brander Matthews-by his friends and it may, it estranges. An instance is that thus a large though an intimate occasion. which makes one of the most delightful In richly varied framework, Clemens used traits of one of the most delightful of our essentially the same means of repeating actresses, undervalued by routine pro- antiphonally in various tones, ranging scription of mannerism that is piquant from the sepulchral to the ferocious but all along with that which is flat. If nothing weirdly drawling, what he pretended, with is so flat as excess, on the other hand obviously no warrant of either truth or nothing is so engaging as quality, in fra- caricature to constitute either wit or grance that is faint but distinct. It is humor, was the singularly sinister name only of what is too little that we say we of the evening's guest. I remember no cannot have too much. Dickens gave us occasion of more prolonged and luxurious a surfeit of facetiousness. Hewas so much mirth than each of these. Meanwhile, , an actor-not being one—as to suffer his naturally, the æsthetic faculties were more manner, become mannerism, to histrionize or less in abeyance. They will not, howhis style, the conscious field of his art by ever, stay there; and, the glamour of the which he set great store, but which he so occasion vanished, we feel that this sort of personalized with the manner of which he thing, well worthy of being called genius was still fonder as to rob it of the objec- (if that does it any real good), can't be tive quality that, precisely, makes art of kept up. The dosage can't be increasedexpression. He conceived his manner as a necessity for conserving its effect. Nor style. He has passage after passage in can one's appreciation of it be communiwhat one might call the voluntarily cated to benighted consumers of a differstylistic vein that probably irritated ent brand of stimulant. For this there is Thackeray much more than Bulwer's too much personality and too little style "height of fine language” did Yellow- about it. To secure permanence in the plush. But taken at the flood, even these æsthetic product the preservative quality passages, perhaps they especially, were of the latter element is needed. Without apt to turn into the channel of facetious- it, art is as fleeting as fashion; which is ness, where the temptation to be funny no more than saying that language has a becomes irresistible. Thereupon verbiage greater chance of survival than jargon. sostenuto, as in Mark Twain the idea da None the less, it cannot be gainsaid that capo. If Mark Twain, however, had personality is the most interesting thing thought he was being "stylistic” in the in the world, and the proper study of manprocess he would probably not have got kind. Personality, therefore, expressing the laugh” that he rarely failed finally to itself in style, achieves at once the most get and that, I should suppose, Dickens interesting and the most lasting æsthetic gets now mainly through his matter. result. Mark Twain's method was sapiently It is, however, essential to remember direct. Yet the best, in the sense of the that personality is an exceedingly comstarkest, example of it that I remember plicated affair. Undoubtedly what in any was furnished by one of our “minstrels,” work of art captivates or alienates, interin days when our humor of a certain grade ests or wearies the critical spirit, the conwas masked by burnt cork, when our noisseur or even the amateur, is, as Saintehumorous entertainments were explicit Beuve testified of himself, the mind of the and professional, and not yet amateur and artist--meaning by mind, of course, both postprandial. This artist came to the intellect and feeling. Yes, and considered front of the stage and in a sulky, then a as a cause, the will also. Is the artist's shamefaced, then a resigned, and finally mind in any given case crude or cultivated, a savage manner remarked many times in is it common or distinguished, listless or an appalling crescendo ending in a shout- energetic? What is its other furniture ing climax that his girl lived in Yonkers. aside from the machinery concerned with The public, at first uninterested, ended in the immediate matter in hand? These convulsions of glee.

abstract qualities, as informing the con

« PředchozíPokračovat »