LOWELL, JAMKS RUSSELL. 



449 



in the grammar nml dictionary rather 

 tin- In-art ; anil that our only chance ni' cm-ape 

 _' it at. it* living sources, aiming tho>r 

 ,1 (;il.l...n, 



" illiterate. <>ur popular ili'Mii i* racy with 

 >r. ami originality, Kucksomc (as Milton u--d 



lir lle\\ oc.-aM.'M.s, ailil prove-, itself l|o 



graft l'\ M-ndiiii,' up new MU-kci> I'roin the old 

 : in -pi!.- . -I' us. 'I hat 'A c should In- all made to talk 

 it the danger I>V which we are threateiie.1 

 .he univ.-r-ul Bobool-muter. No language atl<-r it 

 faded into iliitiiin, none that can not suck up the 



lilllT jlliee- secreted tor it ill the Hell mother earth 



imoii t'.ilk, car bring forth u sound and lusty 



I .animate is the oil of thought, and our own 

 speeially is a rich leaf-mold, the slow deposit of ages, 

 the shed foliage of fooling, fancy, and imagination, 

 wliich IIILS Mitl'ered an earth-change that the vocal 



am-e. Vuli/arii-nm ro often only poetry in the egw. 

 1'ropi-rly spcakini.', vulgarity is 'in the thougl 



not in the word, or in tin'- way of pronoun, -ini/ jt. 

 Modern Kreiii-h, the m.t jxilite of luiiiruagrH, is bar- 

 l.arolisU' vulgar if computed with the l.atin out of 

 wli'u-h it has been corrupted, or cvi-n with Italian. 

 ii a wider gap. and om- implying greater lxr- 

 in)lllCMM, bet" ceii minitiriniii and nii'tii'r.tir 



ami 

 and 



than hetwecii tlruc and drove, or agin 



Of eourse, in what I hove wiid, I wih to In- un 



der.-to.,,l a> keeping ill inilld the diU'ereliee I.. 



provinc-iulisms, j)n>jM.Tly no c-alled. and slanjr. Slanjr 

 is always vulgar, l.eeuimc it in not u natural, hut an 

 alleited way of talking, and all mere tr'n-kn of spi eeh 

 or writing are otlensive. I do not think that Mr. 

 Billow can fairly be charged with vulgarity, and I 

 should have entirely failed in my de-i^n it l'ha-1 not 



KI.M Wcioll, HESIDKNlK UK JAMKS UUSSELX. LUWKLL. 



it, as Howell called it, may clothe itself anew with 

 vuiir ^reen. The quality of exaggeration has often 

 en remarked on as typical of American chanu u r, 

 d especially of American humor. But it seems to 

 me that a j;reat deal of what is set down as mere ex- 

 truvairanee is more fitly to be called intensity and 

 jiieturesqueness, symptoms of the imaginative faculty 

 in full health and strength, though producing as yet 

 ily the raw and formless material in which poetry 

 to work. By and by. perhaps, the world will see 

 t fashioned into poem and picture, and Europe, 

 ivliich will be hard pushed for originality ere long, 

 may have to thank us for a new sensation. The 

 French continue to think Shakespeare exaggerated 

 because he treated English just as our country-folk 

 do when they speak of "a steep price" or say that, 

 they tVi -i /.!' to" a thing. The first postulate" of an 

 original literature is that a people should use their 

 language instinctively and unconsciously, as if it 

 were a lively part of their growth and personality, 

 not as the mere torpid boon of education or inherit- 

 VOL. xxxi. 29 A 



made it appear that high and even refined sentiment 

 may coexist with the shrewder and more comic ele- 

 ments of Yankee character. 



A single specimen from the minute and 

 thoughtful study in words contained in the in- 

 troduction will suffice. Speaking of " illy," Low- 

 ell says: "Mr. Bartlett says it is 'a word used 

 by writers of an inferior class, who do not seem 

 to perceive that "ill " is itself an adverb, without 

 the termination .'//,' and quotes Dr. Messer, Pres- 

 ident of Brown University, as asking triumph- 

 antly, 'Why don't you say welly f I should 

 like "to have Dr. Messer answer his own question. 

 It would be truer to say that it was used by peo- 

 ple who still remembered that ill was an adjec- 

 tive, the shortened form of eril, out of which 

 Shakespeare and the translators ventured to make 

 evilly. The objection to ' illy ' is not an etymo- 



