Creek 31 universal interest, since he himself does not know, in advance, what his subject-matter is. In spite of the fact that Bradley is here speaking of poetry and DeQuincey in the extracts already given is thinking primarily of prose, their remarks apply to both types, and consequently there is no confusion resulting from the use now of poetry and again of prose as the object of consideration. How certainly this is true will appear from the following sentences of a critic, Walter Raleigh, who also takes the romantic view of style: 17 Matter and form are not so inseparable as the popular philosophy would have them; indeed, the very antithesis between them is a cardinal instance of how language reacts on thought, modifying and fixing a cloudy truth. The idea pursues form not only that it may be known to others, but that it may know itself, and the body in which it becomes incarnate is not to be distin- guished from the informing soul. It is recorded of a famous Latin historian how he declared that he would have made Pompey win the battle of Pharsalia had the effective turn of the sentence required it. He may stand for the true type of the literary artist. The business of letters, howsoever simple to those who think truth-telling a gift of nature, is in reality two-fold, to find words for a meaning and to find a meaning for words. It should be noted that the last sentence in the above passage does not state the truth precisely, since, as Bradley notes, the meaning is not really there until the words are there. With this slight correction, the two passages mean the same thing. The problem of prose style is one with that of poetic style. So far, I have been trying to state what the main philosophies of style are and to indicate their relation to criticism. I have not tried to show that the classical or romantic, or even the Spencerian view of style is wrong, though I suppose it is evident that no one theory seems to explain all the facts. Now it may be worth while to see if it is possible to throw any light on the value of these theories. To do so, let us see what the distinction between litera- ture as representation and literature as creation means when applied to criticism: that is, what kind of criticism is likely to result as one or the other theory is accepted. This pragmatic test is, of course, very important. 18 17 W. Raleigh, Style, p. 62. 18 Perhaps a note should be added at this point in regard to the light that may be gained from studies in aesthetics in so far as they deal with the general problem of art. Without pretending to have made a thorough investigation of
all the literature, I may say that aesthetic theory, in so far as it is based on
