NATURE AND FORMS OF PROSE
+62. Definition.+ Prose is the ordinary form of discourse. It is
distinguished from poetry not only by more commonplace thought but also
by the absence of regular metrical structure. Prose and poetry together
constitute the great body of literature; but at the present time, which
is characterized by the predominance of material and commercial
interests, prose forms by far the larger part. In our popular magazines,
poetry is relegated to a very subordinate place.
The forms of prose are various. They may be approximately classified
under history, essays, oratory, fiction, science, philosophy, and
epistolary correspondence. These classes, as will be seen later, are
subject to numerous subdivisions. The last three classes--science,
philosophy, and epistolary correspondence--do not come within the scope
of the present work, but in general it may be said that they are subject
to the same laws of truth and beauty that govern other forms of literary
composition.
+63. History.+ History is a systematic record of past events. It rests
upon contemporary testimony, which may exist in the form of written
documents or of oral tradition. History passes into mythology when it
treats of legendary heroes and divinities, and into fiction when it
treats of imaginary events. Metrical chronicles, however valuable may be
the historical materials they contain, are not to be regarded as history
in the true sense of the word. History presupposes change, which may
take the form of progress or decadence. Without the element of change,
there is nothing to relate beyond the existing state of things. English
literature is very rich in historical writing of every kind, and in the
century that has just passed, we meet in England with the names of
Macaulay, Carlyle, and Froude, and in America with the names of
Bancroft, Prescott, and Motley.
As to time, history has a well-defined and generally accepted division.
This division recognizes three great periods,--namely, _ancient_,
_mediæval_, and _modern_. In each of these periods a general type of
social condition, varying somewhat in different countries, prevailed
without essential change. Ancient history extends from the beginning of
trustworthy records to the fall of the Roman empire in A.D. 476;
mediæval history extends from that date to the revival of learning and
the beginning of the Protestant Reformation in 1517; and modern history
embraces the period extending from that time down to the present.
As to subject-matter, history has been variously divided. When it treats
of human progress in all nations and ages it is called _general_ or
_universal_ history. When it deals with a single country it becomes
_national_ history; thus we have histories of England and of the United
States. When it treats of separate institutions or interests it may be
regarded as _special_ history,--as church history or a history of
literature. Again, history may be divided according to the sources from
which it derives its data. When based on the facts supplied in the
Scriptures it is known as _sacred_ history; when based on other sources
of information it is called _profane_ or _secular_ history. This,
however, is only an arbitrary though convenient distinction; for all
history, as a record of the unfolding purposes of God, is sacred.
As to form, history is divided into several classes. A _chronicle_ is a
register of facts and events in the order of time in which they
occurred. It does not enter into a discussion either of causes or
effects. It is rather a source of historical materials than history
itself. The "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle," for example, contains valuable
facts, but can hardly be regarded as a history of the Anglo-Saxons.
_Annals_ are chronicles that give the events year by year.
As to method, history may be divided into _narrative_, _descriptive_,
and _philosophical_. Each has its definite object, by which its
treatment of materials is determined. _Narrative_ history is chiefly
concerned with a systematic presentation of the facts. It is satisfied
when these are clearly presented in due perspective, and afford a
comprehensive survey of the period or subject treated of. Nearly all the
manuals of history in common use belong to this class.
_Descriptive_ history aims at presenting a graphic portraiture of the
past. Its method is not so much narration as description. Men and events
are brought forward in vivid colors. It makes the past live again
before our eyes like a moving pageant; and better to accomplish this
result, perspective, and even a full statement of events, are sometimes
sacrificed. While narrative history is concerned mostly with the
succession of important public events,--wars, changes of administration,
and far-reaching legislative enactments,--descriptive or scenic history
introduces, in large measure, the social life and manners. Macaulay is a
prince among descriptive historians, though no better example of scenic
history can be found than Carlyle's "French Revolution."
Philosophic history is concerned less with narration and description
than with the underlying causes and effects of events. It regards all
human events as an outward movement or evolution, which proceeds
according to fixed and ascertainable laws. It looks upon history, to use
the words of Macaulay, as "philosophy teaching by example." Philosophic
history is a product of recent times; and among the best examples are
Hegel's "Philosophy of History," Guizot's "History of Civilization," and
Lecky's "History of European Morals."
It is evident that an ideal history will be a combination of the
narrative, descriptive, and philosophic. The first gives the events in
due order and proportion; the second clothes them in living reality; and
the third explains their causes and results. But the production of such
a history requires a rare combination of mental gifts; the vivid
imagination required in scenic description is not usually found
associated with philosophic depth. Perhaps Green's "History of England"
and Bancroft's "History of the United States" are as good examples of
the highest type of historical writing as can be found.
There is a very noticeable difference between the methods of ancient and
modern historians. The former, it has been said, were _artistic_, and
the latter _sociological_. These terms, while aiming at the facts, are
neither accurate nor happy. The ancient historians, as Herodotus and
Thucydides, aimed at a pleasing narrative. To attain this end, neither
an exhaustive investigation of facts nor a conscientious abstention from
fiction was necessary. Hence we find the works of the one filled with
impossible events, and those of the other with orations confessedly
fictitious; but in both cases the introduction of legend and fiction has
imparted an interest that would otherwise be lacking in their works.
With modern historians, especially in the presence of the existing
dominant scientific spirit, it is different. The first requisite of
historical writing at the present day is absolute truth, as nearly as it
can be ascertained. The modern historian is not allowed to draw upon his
imagination for facts; he is held to a laborious and exhaustive
investigation of the sources of information. He writes out of abundant
stores of accurate information; and not content with the mere
chronological narration of facts, he seeks beneath them the principles
or laws that bind them together as a whole. Modern history, particularly
that of the last fifty years, has a breadth, accuracy, and depth, of
which the historians of Greece and Rome hardly dreamed.
+64. Biography.+ Biography is that department of history that gives the
facts and events of an individual life. It is at once an interesting
and important form of history. We have a natural desire to know the
lives and characters of the men who have in any way risen above their
fellows, and been associated with great social, literary, or political
movements. While great men are in large measure the creatures of mighty
movements, they at the same time give direction to historic development.
There is truth in Carlyle's idea that universal history "is at bottom
the history of the great men who have worked there."
There are three general types of biography, corresponding to the three
kinds of history. The first is _narrative_ biography, which is concerned
chiefly with an orderly statement of the leading facts--birth,
parentage, education, marriage, and achievements--in a person's life.
The second is _scenic_ or _descriptive_ biography, which aims at
interest by means of characteristic incidents or anecdotes. The third is
_philosophic_, which tries to trace the relation of a person's life to
the age in which he lived, and to estimate the influence he exerted on
his own and subsequent ages. The first is more common, the second more
interesting, the third more instructive; but it is evident that the best
biographies present a judicious combination of all three types.
The first essential of biography, as of history in general, is truth.
When we are studying a man's life we want to know the facts; otherwise
we shall not be able to judge correctly of his life and work. There are
two principal sources of error in writing biography: the first is
ignorance, which leads to the omission of important particulars or to a
misinterpretation of those that are known; the other source of error is
prejudice for or against the person whose life is portrayed. This
prejudice leads, on the one hand, to such a presentation of the
biographical facts as to magnify the merits of the man; and on the
other, it leads to such a suppression or distortion of the facts as to
detract from his just deserts. Both faults are illustrated in Johnson's
"Lives of the Poets," which, though excellent in the main, are sometimes
defective for lack of research, and colored by the writer's strong Tory
and Anglican sentiments.
_Autobiography_ is the story of a man's life written by himself. It is
perhaps the most interesting form of biography. In autobiography the
writer has the advantage of an intimate acquaintance not only with the
outward facts but also with the secret influences and motives by which
his life has been controlled. It takes us, as it were, behind the scenes
of history; but at the same time there is inevitably the error that
springs from undue partiality. And though men like Rousseau, Gibbon, and
Franklin attempt to divest themselves of this prejudice, and even
succeed in a remarkable degree, there is reason to suspect the omission
of facts and motives that would reflect too unfavorably upon the
character.
A _diary_ is a record of one's daily occupations and experiences. It
sustains the same relation to biography that chronicles or annals do to
history: it furnishes the materials out of which biography is made. When
the diarist is a man of prominence, as in the case of Dean Swift, his
journal throws an interesting light not only upon his own life but also
upon the times in which he lives. It introduces us to men in the freedom
and frankness of private life. When the diary is kept, not with a view
to subsequent publication but merely to aid one's memory, it becomes a
valuable record of facts.
+65. Some Criteria.+ In judging a historical work three principal points
are to be taken into consideration.
(1) The first is concerned with the mode of execution. Is the outward
form of the work such as is required by the laws of art? The diction
should be conformable to the subject, and marshaled in correct, varied,
and forcible sentences. The style should bend to suit the changing
themes. The interest and impressiveness of a work, as may be seen in
Macaulay and Irving, depend in no small measure upon its literary
quality. Furthermore, there should be movement and symmetry. The
progress of events should be followed in a natural order, and the place
and treatment of each should be according to its relative importance. As
in a drama, there should be a beginning, middle, and end.
(2) The second point to be considered in a history is the
subject-matter. Obviously this is of prime importance, for the object of
history is the preservation and communication of truth. In weighing a
historical work, we should consider both the writer's sources of
information and the use he has made of them. Has he gone to original and
trustworthy sources of information or has he taken his materials at
secondhand? Has he given them thorough or only partial examination? Has
he well digested his materials, so that he writes from the fullness of
assimilated knowledge, or does he present only the raw materials of
history? While delightful and useful histories may be written largely of
secondhand materials, it is evident that monumental historic
achievements, like Gibbon's "Decline and Fall" or Carlyle's "Oliver
Cromwell," must be based on exhaustive original investigation. And
however useful may be the works that serve up undigested materials, they
cannot be regarded as constituting history in a literary sense, for they
lack the element of art.
(3) The third point to be considered in judging a historical work is the
personality of the author. What is his mental caliber? He should have
the breadth of view that enables him to grasp the subject in its
entirety, and to coördinate the facts according to their relative
importance. Otherwise he will dwell on insignificant details, lack
largeness of movement, and, instead of sweeping forward like a river,
spread out aimlessly like a dreary marsh. He should have the breadth of
culture that will enable him to weigh the facts he uses. This requires
familiarity with various systems of belief. Whether a theologian or a
scientist, a Protestant or a Romanist, he should be able to do justice
to the facts and motives of the opposite party. His love of truth should
be supreme. He should have soundness of judgment in connection with a
clear logical sense. He must not jump at conclusions, but base them on
sufficient evidence. And then the mood, attitude, and prejudices should
be ascertained. This constitutes his standpoint. Most writers have
convictions or belong to schools of belief that consciously or
unconsciously influence their work. A skeptic like Gibbon could hardly
do justice to the rise and progress of Christianity.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. What is prose? How is it distinguished from poetry? What is said of
prose in this age? Name the principal forms of prose. Which do not come
within the scope of this book?
2. What is history? On what does it rest? How is it different from
mythology? from fiction? What is the relation of history to change? What
is said of history in English literature? What threefold division of
history is there in regard to time? Name the limits of each. As to
subject-matter, how is history divided? What division is based on the
sources of information? Define a chronicle; annals. As to method, what
threefold division of history is there? Define narrative, descriptive,
and philosophic history. What method does the best history follow? What
difference is there between ancient and modern methods in history? What
is the first requisite of historic writing to-day?
3. What is biography? Why is it interesting? What was Carlyle's idea?
What three different types exist? What is the chief requisite? What are
the two principal sources of error? What is autobiography? What
advantage has autobiography? what source of error? What is a diary? Of
what use is a diary?
4. In judging a history, what is the first point to be considered? What
is required by the laws of art? What is said of style? What is meant by
symmetry? What is the second point to be considered? What two inquiries
should be made? On what are the greatest historical works based? What is
the third point to be considered? What should be the historian's mental
equipment? Why is it important to know his fundamental philosophical or
religious beliefs?
NOTE
In place of illustrative and practical selections, as given in earlier
chapters, it is suggested that the student be referred to a few leading
works in the department of history. Among those that might be used,
apart from popular text-books on the subject, are Macaulay's "History of
England," Green's "History of the English People," Carlyle's "French
Revolution," Prescott's "Conquest of Mexico," Motley's "Rise of the
Dutch Republic," Irving's "Life of Goldsmith," the autobiographies of
Franklin, Gibbon, and Ruskin, the diaries of Pepys and Evelyn, Johnson's
"Lives of the Poets," volumes from the English Men of Letters series,
the American Men of Letters series, the American Statesmen series, or
any other works to which the student may have access.
The volumes assigned by the teacher should be studied with reference to
diction and style as presented in Part Second of this work. In addition
to this, the narrative, descriptive, and philosophical passages should
be distinguished. By an analysis of a single chapter or of the whole
book, the symmetry and completeness of the author's treatment may be
judged. The writer's purpose and standpoint should, if possible, be
ascertained, and the effect upon the work pointed out. His mood,
character, and intellectual gifts should be traced as reflected in his
work. The results of this investigation might be presented in the form
of a written critique.