would fail to tell of the worthies of the Elizabethan age, the great Courtiers who left us examples so noble.

The names of three must suffice: Francis Bacon, Edmund Spenser, Francis Drake. Bacon, who took 'all knowledge to be his province,' laid the foundations of philosophy and of science in England (and, incidentally, fixed the form of the Essay); Spenser, in his Faerie Queene, enshrined in beautiful verse the whole ideal of virtue of his day; the ideal (in fact) of courtesy; Drake carried the flag of England round the world; and plundered and out-generalled and vanquished the national foe with a valour and a brilliance of invention which (it is scarce too much to say) taught the elements of strategy and tactics to the great sea-captains who came after him.

Nor were these things all. For, the Elizabethan Courtier was no specialist: philosopher, or poet, or adventurer that he was, he made the better statesman and administrator; he was wise in affairs; in his eyes, the welfare of the State came before all. He was not a politician-a very different animal. 'I used,' said Robert Louis Stevenson, 'I used to think meanly of the plumber; but, how he shines beside the politician!' And one and all, the Courtiers possessed the love of beauty, the right taste for a refined magnificence.

What a bead-roll of virtues and accomplishments have we now! Yet, they are all commonly denominated courtesy: philosophy, science, poetry, adventure, skill in arms, statesmanship, loyalty, the love of beauty. A'sincere politeness,' too; that is included as of course.

And yet, the sincere politeness is all that has survived of the wrack of a treasure, once the natural heritage of the Court. Where are the great men of our time, who found in the Court 'the way to political influence, to social advancement, to power and consideration and fame'? The great men we know but sad contradiction-although the virtues of courtesy live again in them, they are not of the Court. Charles Darwin, Robert Browning, and Charles George Gordon, three notable Victorians, may stand as representing

some equivalent to the three renowned Elizabethans: Bacon, Spenser, Drake; as philosopher and scientist, poet, and heroic adventurer. What had the Court to do with them, or they with the Court? Nothing. The Court neither helped nor hindered the patient man of science, the assiduous poet; and for the soldier-twist it how you will, it comes to this—he was betrayed to death by a Minister of the Crown. True, the late Lord Tennyson was of the Court; yet his example does but emphasize the lack of others.

'Tis true, 'tis pity-but the Court, to use Mr. Raleigh's phrase, has 'dwindled into a drawing-room'; where, of all the courtly virtues, 'sincere politeness' alone remains; for, loyalty and statesmanship must be counted but uncertain exceptions. To trace the causes of the Court's decline, and the steps of that declension, and the exile of courtesy, would be to wander beyond the limits of this essay.

But, the virtues of courtesy, though exiled from their natural home, still survive and flourish; and there are men of our time, who never saw a Court, and who may yet, for their courtesy, be named beside their great ancestors, the Courtiers of the Renaissance.

III

ON FAMILIAR STYLE

IN treating this subject, you are to work the preliminary steps, as in the two foregoing subjects. Then, compare your result with the essay on the same subject, which is taken from the writings of William Hazlitt. Having first dealt with the subject yourself, you will be in a position to appreciate its difficulties, and the way in which a great writer meets and overcomes them. Thus, you will learn something of his method; and his conclusions will serve to confirm and to correct your own; and so, in writing your essay, you will be enabled to fortify and to illustrate your line of argument by his.

The first step is, as always, to define the title of the essay to yourself. What is meant by Familiar Style? The word Style may be defined as a particular mode of outward expression of an idea; as applied to manner, conduct, speech, dress; to a work of art, whether of architecture, painting, sculpture, music, oratory, the drama, or of literature. The word Familiar, means the state of intimate acquaintance; the origin of the word being the Latin, familia, household, inclusive of family and slaves; which word, says Crabbe (English Synonyms), 'includes in it every circumstance of con

дел

59

nexion and relationship.' It is easy to see how the word, which at first meant the state of connection and relationship, came to mean the kind of state which such connection and relationship would naturally tend to create; namely, a state of intimate acquaintance. So that our title means:-A particular mode of outward expression, applied to one of the uses enumerated above, and used in relation to one with whom we have an intimate acquaintance. Which particular mode is here meant? The most obvious meaning is, the mode of expression as applied to literature, or writing. And who is the one with whom we have, or are supposed to have, an intimate acquaintance? The reader. The essay, then, will deal withwhat? The method of addressing your reader in an intimate way. So far, so good.

The second step, is to define to yourself what kind of subject you have to do with. Is it Abstract, Concrete, or the two combined? As the subject seems to suggest a treatment that deals both with theory and practice, we may call it Combined. And in treating a Combined subject, how do we begin our investigation, which is to gain us our material? By striking the keynote of the Central Idea, as in a Concrete subject? Or by definition, as in an Abstract Subject? As a general rule, by definition. You cannot begin to write an essay, which is an explanation, while you have anything unexplained in your own mind. Take note-book and pen, and begin to ask yourself questions.

What is Style? A mode of expression. That is your first note. Yes, but what is it that makes a mode, or manner, of expression? Why, since language (for instance) is a common possession, should individual use of it differ? Obviously, because individuals occupy different points of view. But, why do they occupy different points of view?

Because each individual

98

differs from the other. In what way? In character,
intelligence, endowment of qualities: in one word,
temperament. What is the conclusion? That differ-
ences of expression-or style-arise from differences of
temperament. The hackneyed quotation from Buffon
comes to mind:-Le style, c'est l'homme même. Make
a note of the conclusion, at which we have arrived,
and the quotation, and continue. What is the next
question? Refer to the title. We are dealing, not with
style as such but, with familiar style; which is, accord-
ing to our conclusion, the expression of a man's self ✔
to his readers, his audience, as to an intimate acquaint-
ance. This seems to bring us to the Concrete part of
the subject; for, since every one who writes, addresses
his readers, we, as readers, must needs have plenty of
experience to draw upon, in discussing the matter of
style. And as we are (fortunately) limited to the discus-
sion of familiar style, the next question that naturally
arises, is :-What is the advantage, and what the dis-
advantage, of using a familiar style? In order to solve
this problem, what question are we to ask, next? The
question which must always be asked, in debating upon
which, out of several, courses should be followed:-
What is the primary object of your action? When that
is made clear, you will adopt the course which will most
effectually accomplish your end.

In other words, with what object does a writer express himself at all? Surely, with the object of conveying his ideas to others. In what different styles, does experience tell us, do authors choose to convey their meaning? Experience tells us that one writer uses short and simple words and phrases;1 another employs long, Latinised expressions; 2 another makes brief 1 Bunyan, Defoe, Swift.

2 Milton, Sir Thomas Browne, De Quincey.