« PreviousContinue »
indeed if theory and practice, science and art, should prove mutually repellant, as so much talk which opposes theory and practice implies. The more perfect one's construction in thought, the more perfect may be his practice under guidance of that thought. While art precedes science, it is only through science that art may be perfected; hence, art is made effective by perfecting the science.
Besides, the scientific treatment is the only elementary one. The rule and recipe treatment cannot excuse itself on the plea of making the subject easy. A subject may be shunned successfully, but it cannot be simplified without scientific coördination. If the subject is to be made easy as well as practical, it must be reduced to an organized, coherent body of knowledge. And if this were not true, even the high-school pupil is not a child and must put away childish things. Not at all that I should expect or care that he be conscious of scientific experience, but that he should have the experience without reflecting on it. He must see, or see nothing, the relation of unity among the elements of his subject-matter. In studying rhetoric the pupil usually accepts obediently anything and everything in the serial order put down for him; would accept as many more or as many less in any order in which they might be served up. Discourse, real living discourse, is not such a hodge-podge, and the sooner he finds it out the better, both for ease in knowing and power in practice: : What is needed is not dodging, but simple, fait concretë, and organic statement.
discourse as it: unfoldş from a single principle, and to practise constructing and interpreting it, under that principle. He must become award that is determined from within,
rician. Experience has proved that so much a high-school
pupil can do, and it needs no argument to convince one that such organic grasp of, and specific insight into, the subject is the only economic way to an efficient practice in the construction or interpretation of discourse. Whatever the result, such is the earnest conviction which prompts the following treatment, and which accounts for the deviation from the beaten path of rhetorical discussion.
This book is based on a former publication by the author, under the same title. The former treatment was dominated by a pedagogical motive, which, for the present purpose, required so complete a rewriting that this work can scarcely be called a revision of the former. The spirit of scientific coördination, however, which prompted the old is the ruling spirit in the new, so that I can say now as I did then :
“Whatever the result of the effort, this book has been written under the conviction that a more strictly scientific treatment of discourse is possible than has yet been made, and which would, therefore, yield a higher discipline and a more fruitful application in the art than usually results from discourse study.”
Much valuable assistance has been received from the leading Rhetorics, and, when of a nature to permit, formal credit has been given in the text. Special credit should be given to C. C. Everett's “Science of Thought” and to Herbert Spencer's “Essay on the Philosophy of Style,” the former having direct influence on my treatment of “The Thought in Discourse," and the latter on “ The Language in Discourse."
ARNOLD TOMPKINS. DEPARTMENT OF PEDAGOGY,
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS. CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS, Feb. 5, 1897.