That strut and fret their hour upon the stage--

but of tall phantoms of words, abstractions, _genera_ and _species_,

sweeping clauses, periods that unite the Poles, forced alliterations,

astounding antitheses--

And on their pens _Fustian_ sits plumed.

If they describe kings and queens, it is an Eastern pageant. The

Coronation at either House is nothing to it. We get at four repeated

images--a curtain, a throne, a sceptre, and a footstool. These are with

them the wardrobe of a lofty imagination; and they turn their servile

strains to servile uses. Do we read a description of pictures? It is

not a reflection of tones and hues which 'nature's own sweet and cunning

hand laid on,' but piles of precious stones, rubies, pearls, emeralds,

Golconda's mines, and all the blazonry of art. Such persons are in fact

besotted with words, and their brains are turned with the glittering but

empty and sterile phantoms of things. Personifications, capital letters,

seas of sunbeams, visions of glory, shining inscriptions, the figures of

a transparency, Britannia with her shield, or Hope leaning on an anchor,

make up their stock-in-trade. They may be considered as _hieroglyphical_

writers. Images stand out in their minds isolated and important merely

in themselves, without any groundwork of feeling--there is no context

in their imaginations. Words affect them in the same way, by the mere

sound, that is, by their possible, not by their actual application to

the subject in hand. They are fascinated by first appearances, and have

no sense of consequences. Nothing more is meant by them than meets the

ear: they understand or feel nothing more than meets their eye. The web

and texture of the universe, and of the heart of man, is a mystery to

them: they have no faculty that strikes a chord in unison with it.

They cannot get beyond the daubings of fancy, the varnish of sentiment.

Objects are not linked to feelings, words to things, but images revolve

in splendid mockery, words represent themselves in their strange

rhapsodies. The categories of such a mind are pride and ignorance--pride

in outside show, to which they sacrifice everything, and ignorance of

the true worth and hidden structure both of words and things. With a

sovereign contempt for what is familiar and natural, they are the slaves

of vulgar affectation--of a routine of high-flown phrases. Scorning to

imitate realities, they are unable to invent anything, to strike out one

original idea. They are not copyists of nature, it is true; but they

are the poorest of all plagiarists, the plagiarists of words. All is

far-fetched, dear bought, artificial, oriental in subject and allusion;

all is mechanical, conventional, vapid, formal, pedantic in style and

execution. They startle and confound the understanding of the reader by

the remoteness and obscurity of their illustrations; they soothe the ear

by the monotony of the same everlasting round of circuitous metaphors.

They are the mock-school in poetry and prose. They flounder about

between fustian in expression and bathos in sentiment. They tantalise

the fancy, but never reach the head nor touch the heart. Their Temple

of Fame is like a shadowy structure raised by Dulness to Vanity, or

like Cowper's description of the Empress of Russia's palace of ice, 'as

worthless as in show 'twas glittering'--

It smiled, and it was cold!

Table Talk: Essays on Men and Manners · 第 61 / 83 题