78 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



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 Mack 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 pre- 

 sents 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 be} r ond 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 clear- 

 ness 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 



