the air, the river, the leaf. Art is applied to the mixture of his will with the same things, as in a house, a canal, a picture, a statue. But his operations, taken together, are so insignificant-a little chipping, baking, patching, and washing that in an impression so grand as that of the world on the human mind they do not vary the result.”

In Letters and Social Aims, Mr. Emerson writes: "Eloquence is the power to translate a truth into language perfectly intelligible to the person to whom you speak. He who would convince the worthy Mr. Dunderhead of any truth which Dunderhead does not see, must be a master of his art. Declamation is common; but such possession of thought as is here required, such practical chemistry as the conversion of a truth written in God's language into a truth in Dunderhead's language, is one of the most beautiful and cogent weapons that is forged in the shop of the Divine Artificer."

The first paragraph of Mr. Emerson's Essay on Art reads: "All departments of life at the present dayTrade, Politics, Letters, Science, or Religion-seem to feel, and to labor to express, the identity of their law. They are rays of one sun; they translate each into a new language the sense of the other. They are sublime when seen as emanations of a Necessity contradistinguished from the vulgar Fate by being instant and alive, and dissolving man, as well as his works, in its flowing beneficence. This influence is conspicuously visible in the principles and history of Art."

Another paragraph from Mr. Emerson's Essay on Eloquence: "The orator, as we have seen, must be a substantial personality. Then, first, he must have power of statement-must have the fact, and know how to tell it. In a knot of men conversing on any subject, the per

son who knows most about it will have the ear of the company, if he wishes it, and lead the conversation, no matter what genius or distinction other men there present may have; and, in any public assembly, him who has the facts, and can and will state them, people will listen to, though he is otherwise ignorant, though he is hoarse and ungrateful, though he stutters and screams."

Mr. Emerson, in his Essay on Prudence, writes: "There are all degrees of proficiency in knowledge of the world. It is sufficient to our present purpose to indicate three. One class live to the utility of the symbol, esteeming health and wealth a final good. Another class live above this mark to the beauty of the symbol, as the poet and artist, and the naturalist and man of science. A third class live above the beauty of the symbol to the beauty of the thing signified; those are wise men. The first class have common sense; the second, taste; and the third, spiritual perception. Once in a long time a man traverses the whole scale, and sees and enjoys the symbol solidly; then, also, has a clear eye for its beauty; and, lastly, while he pitches his tent on this sacred volcanic isle of nature, does not offer to build houses and barns thereon, reverencing the splendor of God which he sees bursting through each chink and cranny."

Those that are wont to accept others at their self-assessment and to see things through other people's eyes—and there are many such—are in danger of thinking this kind of writing very fine, when in fact it is not only the veriest swosh, but that kind of swosh that excites at least an occasional doubt with regard to the writer's sanity. We can make no greater mistake than to suppose that the reason we do not understand these rhetorical contortionists is because they are so subtle and profound. We understand

L

them quite as well as they understand themselves. At their very best they are but incoherent diluters of other men's ideas. They have but one thing to recommend them -honesty. They believe in themselves.

"Whatever is dark is deep. Stir a puddle, and it is as deep as a well."-Swift.

'It is certain that Emerson can not be understood by minds competent to understand anything that is worthy of being considered by intellectual men."-George Ticknor Curtis, N. Y. Sun, August 31, 1890.

Synecdoche. The using of the name of a part for that of the whole, the name of the whole for that of a part, or the using of a definite number for an indefinite, is called, in rhetoric, synecdoche. "The bay was covered with sails”i. e., with ships. "The man was old, careworn, and gray ”i. e., literally, his hair, not the man, was gray. “Nine tenths of every man's happiness depends on the reception he meets with in the world." "He had seen seventy winters." "Thus spoke the tempter": here the part of the character is named that suits the occasion.

"His roof was at the service of the outcast; the unfortunate ever found a welcome at his threshold."

"It is a decree of Providence that man shall earn his bread by the sweat of his brow."

·

Take. I copy from the London Queen: "The verb to take is open to being considered a vulgar verb when used in reference to dinner, tea, or to refreshments of any kind. Will you take' is not considered comme il faut; the verb in favor for the offering of civilities being to have." According to The Queen, then, we must say, "Will you have some dinner, tea, coffee, wine, fish, beef, salad," etc.

Talented. This word has been much assailed. "I regret to see that vile and barbarous vocable talented stealing

out of the newspapers into the leading reviews and most respectable publications," said Coleridge. "Talented is a mere newspaper and hustings word, invented, I believe, by O'Connell," said Carlyle. "Talented is about as bad as possible. What is it? It looks like a participle. From what verb? Fancy such a verb as 'to talent!"" says Dean Alford.

In reply to these gentlemen, Mr. Fitz-Edward Hall, who knows more about the matter than all of them put together, says that, instead of such formations being new, they have been employed for more than three centuries. From Bishop Bale (1553) he cites mitered, caped, and tippeted; and from Feltham (1628) parted-excellently parted =of good parts; while as words in everyday use he gives booted, spurred, bearded, cultured, horned, etc.

Although talented is used by many of those that write best, and although no valid objection can be urged against its use, it would nevertheless be well to use it less than we do, and to make greater use of the words gifted and clever.

Taste of. The redundant of, often used in this country in connection with the transitive verbs to taste, to smell, and to feel, is a Yankeeism. We taste or smell or feel a thing, not taste of nor smell of nor feel of a thing. The neuter verbs to taste and to smell are often followed by of. "If butter tastes of brass"; "For age but tastes of pleasures."

"You shall stifle in your own report,

And smell of calumny."-Shakespeare.

Tautology. Among the things to be avoided in writing is tautology, which is the repeating of the same thought, whether in the same or in different words.

Tautophony. "A regard for harmony requires us, in the progress of a sentence, to avoid repeating a sound by

employing the same word more than once, or using in contiguous words similar combinations of letters. This fault is known as tautology."-Dr. G. P. Quackenbos, Advanced Course of Composition and Rhetoric, p. 300. Dr. Quackenbos is in error. The repetition of the same sense is tautology, and the repetition of the same sound, or, as Dr. Quackenbos has it, "the repeating of a sound by employing the same word more than once, or by using in contiguous words similar combinations of letters," is tautophony.

Dr. Quackenbos is equally wrong with regard to the repeating of words. It is often very much better to repeat a word than to employ a synonym. Example:

"It may be possible with freshly drawn blood to distinguish the blood of healthy persons from that of diseased individuals," etc. If individual were correctly used—which it is not-it would still have been far better to repeat person.

Teach. To impart knowledge, to inform, to instruct; as, "Teach me how to do it"; "Teach me to swim"; "He taught me to write." The uncultured often misuse learn for teach. See LEARN.

Tense. The errors made in the use of the tenses are manifold. The one most frequently made by persons of culture-the one that everybody makes, would perhaps be nearer the fact-is that of using the imperfect instead of the perfect tense; thus, "I never saw it played but once : say have seen. "He was the largest man I ever saw": say have seen. "I never in my life had such trouble": say have had.

Another frequent error, the making of which is not confined to the unschooled, is that of using two verbs in a past tense when only one should be in that time; thus, “I in