zmiEmm
wr" ::"
HUiar tfi--- s '
Itti ,
MM
-?tf'
No. 10.
ElMTOMALS.
250
.
upon u work which promises such mea
gre returns. When so mnny mer of gen
ins htive written books upon almost every
subject, which hnve cost them most ardu
ous toil, what chance is there that a new
author may flml even an out oftho-way
nook in general libraries? IP he succeed, he
must have genius of pre-eminent quality;
and not only genius, but also the vim to
work as other authors before him have
worked. Keep out of it, young man and
woman, unless you are sure that you are
one ol the elect.
UHETORIOALS.
Many of the students seem to think that
the essays which they are required to
write for rhetorical purposes are disagree
able and prolitless nuisances, and they
cither try to got clear of writing them, or
being unsuccessful in this, get them up in
the quickest manuei possible. No more
mischievous idea with regard to literary
culture could be entertained by a student
than this. The two or three essays which
are required eacli term of all students of
the college classes, are designed, not for
essays to please an audience, or for artic
les of interest to till the columns of a news
paper, but as aids in becoming profici'mt
writers. These essays are designed to
serve a purpose in composition somewhat
analogous to that of parsing and analys
ing in grammar to put a knowledge of
the rule-, and principle? ol composition to
practical application. In .short, this is
one of 'he many ways to thorough culture
and should no more he shunned by a stu
dent than a study in mathematics, clas
sics, or the sciences. Ky those who have
some ability as writers, tiie argument is
often used that they have their style of
writing, and the Professor has his, and
that therefore his criticisms are unjust, of
tentimes, because he is endeavoring to
make their style confoim to his own.
They use the same old argument that Lea
sing, used in attempting to rebut the crit
icisms of Gocze: "Every man has his
own style, just as his own nose, and it is
neither christian-like nor polite to rally
one on one's nose." Undoubtedly, critic
isms arc often made upon these rhetorical
essays which are unjust, because of the
difference between the nature and taste of
the student and that of thePiofessor. Hut
yet, while admitting this, we must ac
knowledge that there is snob a thing in
literary composition as style with its rules,
limitations and governing principles, and
witli which every student should become
familiar, and in a measure be governed
by. Every artist, however much a genius,
must study the principles of his trade and
be taught by those more experienced than
himself. No matter how brilliant an ora
tor a man may naturally be, he must stu
dy the .st'le of others, and profit thereby
if he would become skilled in oratory.
So it is with writers. They must learn
and improve 1)3- studying the principles
of composition, the style of other writers,
am, by having 'heir own productions re
viewed and criticised. Writers of repute
may profit by the criticisms of a Johnson,
Carlyle, Maciulay. Whipple, etc., etc., and
by our many critical reviewers, but the
less renowned writers of our colleges may
profit most by the criticisms of the Prof.
cksoi- who has this work in charge. Ami
there is about as much probability that
the peculiar style of the student, with
whatever merit it may possess, will be vit
iated by assimilation of the style of the
Professor, as that one's peculiar style of
language will bevitiated by the study of
English grammar. .Michael Angelo was
so enraged because a friendly critic oiler
ed a criticism upon one of his lavoritc
statues, that he threw a handful of marble
dust in his face. Perhaps he might have
profited by the criticism if he had rucoiv
ed it in a friendly spirit, and thought up
on it. So it is with some students in the
rhetorical classes. The criticisms' which
the Professor makes upon sonic of their
pet themes or sayings are received with
anything hut a friendly spirit and u can.
did, thoughtful mind.
uwwuMnnn
""""""""""""""""""""""I
wrpwitgn '- -- -
E"P"TWfiiujg
