Creek 25 The distinction is made just as clearly by the theorists who were not poets Hugh Blair, George Campbell, and Lord Kames. 1 In his Elements of Criticism 2 Lord Kames remarks: Language possesseth a beauty superior greatly in degree, of which we are eminently sensible when a thought is communicated with perspicuity and sprightliness. The beauty of language, arising from its power of expressing thought, is apt to be confounded with the beauty of the thought itself: the beauty of thought, transferred to the expression, makes it appear more beauti- ful. But these beauties, if we wish to think accurately, must be distinguished from each other. They are in reality so distinct that we sometimes are con- scious of the highest pleasure language can afford, when the subject expressed is disagreeable: a thing that is loathsome, or a scene of horror to make one's hair stand on end, may be described so lively, as that the disagreeableness of the subject shall not even obscure the agreeableness of the description. ... I shall only at present observe that this beauty is the beauty of means fitted to an end, that of communicating thought; and hence it evidently appears, that of several expressions all conveying the same thought, the most beautiful, in the sense now mentioned, is that which in the most perfect manner answers its end. At first glance, again, these final words might seem to indicate a philosophy of style much like that of Spencer, but there is a subtle and important distinction. Kames says that the beauty of style of which he is speaking represents adaptation to an end, the com- munication of thought, and if we are to judge from the preceding sentences, the skillful presentation of insignificant or unpleasing matter may be in itself a great beauty. But if this is true, the beauty is not in useful service, it is in the gymnastics of the writer, and we have to recognize that style has its own ornamental beauty. Spencer is consistent. Kames perhaps has a better grasp of the facts of literature, but he is not consistent in giving style an inde- pendent value and yet insisting that this value is adaptation to communication. Perhaps a homely illustration will make the point clearer. Suppose a store has an automobile truck for delivering goods. It is particularly well adapted for the quick delivery of the goods which the firm handles, and no matter how insignificant the 1 Hugh Blair, Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres; George Campbell, Philosophy of Rhetoric, Book III, ch. I, Sect. iii. 2 Kames, Elements oj Criticism (Edinburgh, 1785), vol. H, pp. 4f._ following from Chesterfield's Letters (edited by Bradshaw, vol. I, p. 276) is also pertinent: " Style is the dress of thoughts; and let them be ever so just, if you style is homely, coarse, and vulgar, they will appear to as much disadvantage, and be as ill received as your person, though ever so well proportioned, wou
if dressed in rags, dirt, and tatters."
