Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 76.djvu/82

78 would hardly call for serious comment, only that it is still highly praised by American rhetoricians and that Spencer in his publications of 1902 reaffirmed his belief in the conclusions reached by him in 1853, though indeed he confessed that the question of style had never by him been made a real object of study.

Spencer maintains that the desideratum that underlies the specific rules of rhetoric is to so present ideas that they may be apprehended with the least possible mental effort, and he proceeds to inquire whether economy of the recipient's attention is not the secret of the effect sought in the choice of words, their collocation, the arrangement of clauses, figures of speech and the rhythmical sequence of syllables. The short, familiar, imitative, specific, Saxon words are more forcible because they economize the reader's powers. The English idiom which puts the adjective before the noun is better than the French, because on reading the expression un cheval noir one tends first to think of a bay horse and an effort must be made to repaint the image, so to speak, while on reading a black horse the idea suggested by the adjective, being abstract, is suspended in its application until the noun gives us the substance for our concrete picture. On the same principle the predicate, which presents the subject under a certain aspect, must come first. Great is Diana of the Ephesians is more impressive than what is sometimes called the natural order. This theory of style is at first glance very plausible. That one should not waste mental effort seems obvious. But the more closely one examines it the more paradoxical does Spencer's so-called philosophy of style become. One feels this when he proposes to call the inverted style the direct, and the natural order the indirect. The philosopher himself is forced to recognize that his theory has limitations. It is not always the shortest epithet that is the most effective; It is grand may be less impressive than It is magnificent. Moreover, he confesses that beyond a certain point more is lost than is gained by the inverted order; the effort to carry in suspense is greater than that needed to correct a series of misconceptions in approaching the complete statement. He goes so far as to say "A greater grasp of mind is required for the ready comprehension of thoughts expressed in the direct manner, where the sentences are anywise intricate." This style admittedly demands a "considerable power of concentration." That is, it calls for a high degree of attention. Spencer says further "even when addressing the most vigorous intellects the direct style is unfit for communicating thoughts of a complex or abstract character."

In fact, as we proceed we find that this theory of style becomes hopelessly involved because of the failure to distinguish between clearness and force, and, again, between clearness and simplicity, and to recognize that style must suit itself not merely to different capacities but to different purposes. The theory's defects become apparent when