Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

in different ways. Or it may be that the whole problem is to state some fundamental conception; for instance, to define a gentleman, the classic spirit, or the rights of labor. In all such cases the explanation is made largely, if not entirely, by definition, since it is plain that to define is the surest way of gaining clearness and accuracy.

Nevertheless, a definition cannot be satisfactory unless it sets true limits and is clearly phrased. If one should say, for example, that a square is a figure with four equal sides, or a figure with four right angles, he would have an imperfect definition, because in either case it would fail to set limits that would exclude all figures other than rectangles with equal sides. Or again, if one should say that a chair is a movable seat, made of wood, with back and arms, intended for the accommodation of one person, the definition would be bad, because it would not include chairs without arms and chairs made of some material other than wood. Furthermore, if one should define narration as that kind of writing which narrates, obviously no real explanation would be effected, because the reader would still need to know the meaning of "narrate." Finally, if we should define a gyroscope as an instrument designed to illustrate the dynamics of rotating bodies, the definition would scarcely help matters much, since the terms of the definition would be familiar to few except trained scientists. It is evident, then, from these simple examples that if a definition is to be valuable as a means of explanation, it must accurately exclude all that should be excluded; it must include all that should be included; it must be free from derivatives of the words denoting the idea to be defined; and it must be expressed in terms altogether familiar to the reader.

C. EXEMPLIFICATION

A third means of exposition is exemplification. Perhaps no method of explaining is simpler and more natural than this. How inevitable it is may be seen in our daily experience when we meet an inquirer with such a remark as, "Wait a little and

I'll show you one," or "Why, this is one right here." Suppose that we are asked to explain what chintz is, or the meaning of the term "begging the question," or our idea of a "good fellow"; it will undoubtedly be easier to cite particular instances of each than to frame a satisfactory definition, or to make complete analysis. This method is effective, too, because it is absolutely specific. The concrete and the specific usually mean more to the ordinary person than the abstract and the general, and touch his interest more directly and vitally. One may write page after page explaining the importance of imagination in business, defining imagination and analyzing its part in business success, and yet fail to be altogether clear; but when two bootblacks are introduced, one of whom used imagination to his practical advantage over the other, the whole matter is lighted up and made impressive.1 Consequently this method is much used, especially in any explanatory writing which must enlist the interest of a wide variety of readers. Indeed in popular exposition the method is often pushed to an extreme which is close to narrative.

But exposition by exemplification has its drawbacks. It is quite possible that a particular instance cited will not always be completely typical, in which case the explanation will be misleading or inaccurate. If one were to name the essays of Elia to explain the nature of exposition, there would be an obvious fault in the reader's consequent conception. Even if several instances are used, instead of one, in order to make the exemplification more perfectly representative, it is impossible to be sure of accuracy; one cannot be certain of his reader's power of generalization, that is, his power to infer for himself the exact nature of the matter under explanation. Not everyone who sees a square drawn on a piece of paper can infer for himself that a square must always have equal sides and equal angles. Likewise it is by no means certain that everyone who hears the specific instances which Cardinal Newman cites in his famous explanation of the gentleman can generalize on his own 1 Lorin F. Deland, Imagination in Business. Harper and Brothers, 1909.

account sufficiently to get Newman's definition of a gentleman as one who never inflicts pain. Hence careful explanation often requires that exemplification be used in combination with some other method, usually analysis or definition.

D. COMPARISON

Then again, explanation can be effected by comparison. This method, seen in the figurative word as well as in the more elaborate illustration, is so simple that it needs little comment. Whenever anything strange is to be explained, it is obviously helpful to find something which is essentially similar and also familiar to the reader, and then to make the one clear through its likeness to the other. For instance, it is easy to understand how the Iroquois built his house, if it is compared with an arbor overarching a garden walk;1 and there is no better way of explaining the operation of habit than by the old comparison with a creased sheet of paper. This method is valuable, too, even when it is not the only means of securing clearness; comparisons are perforce concrete, and besides making the explanation more intelligible they grip the reader's mind. In the expository writings of Franklin, Lowell, Macaulay, and Stevenson comparison contributes largely to effectiveness; and it is well known how Lincoln used anecdotes to show his point of view and simplify difficult explanations. To be useful, however, any comparison, like any figure of speech, must be familiar to the reader and it must be based on a real likeness; a likeness in essentials, not incidentals; a likeness clear enough to seem naturally drawn. Still, even the most perfect comparison, like the most perfect example, can hardly carry an entire explanation. Both are most valuable when they supplement analysis or definition.

E. CONTRAST

Finally, effective explanation can be gained through contrast, the negative of comparison. Although it is the likeness of two

1 Parkman, The Jesuits in North America. Introduction.

things which usually illumines an explanation, there are some things which are best understood through their unlikeness. Everyone knows how the jeweler, the painter, and the architect use contrast in getting visual effects; and it has a similar value in matters purely intellectual. For instance, the traveler has abundant chance to understand many things about the political principles and social customs of a foreign country through their essential unlikeness to things at home; and upon his return he realizes many things about the life and institutions of his native land which he had never observed before. In like manner the expository writer may make an explanation clear by showing the points of difference between the matter under discussion and some other matter familiar to his reader. He may adopt merely an antithetical arrangement of phrases or clauses in a sentence, as in Dr. Johnson's oft-quoted contrast of Dryden and Pope, "If the flights of Dryden are higher, Pope continues longer on the wing"; or his purpose in an entire article may be one of differentiation, as in Mr. Brownell's chapter on New York after Paris at the end of his French Traits. But exposition by contrast is especially useful in explaining ideas which are easily confused with other ideas. To give a satisfactory explanation of such widely separated policies as protection and free trade without contrasting the one with the other would be entirely possible, though not natural; but to make a clear and unmistakable explanation of wit without contrasting it with humor, or of morality without showing how it differs from religion, would be practically impossible. So in the making of close distinctions contrast becomes an almost indispensable auxiliary of definition.

F. THE METHODS IN COMBINATION

Much of what has been said in the preceding paragraphs shows the advantage of adopting some combination of these expository methods rather than of depending on a single one of them. Each may have its special value when applied to a

particular problem. One may tend to give an explanation simplicity, another exactness; one may make it lucid, another interesting. But several of these methods taken together will secure the quality most essential, without the sacrifice of any other that may be highly desirable. In this connection it will be decidedly instructive to study the work of skilled writers. The following paragraphs, chosen to represent various types of exposition, do not by any means exhaust the possibilities of combining the methods effectively.

(1) Three large influences make for a mutual understanding from folk to folk. The first is the newspaper, which every morning prints information from the uttermost parts of the earth. The second is travel, which teaches a multitude of people that the Chinaman, the Turk, the Zulu, and the Mexican are, after all, rather agreeable people. The third influence is the internationalization of men of learning in their world-congresses of doctors, of publicists, of engineers, of journalists, of what not, which have a mighty effect in breaking down the feeling that a man is dangerous to you because he uses strange sounds, eats out of an unaccustomed kettle, and wears his traditional costume.1

(2) What is a great man? Common speech, which after all must be our guide to the sense of the terms which the world uses, gives this name to many sorts of men. How far greatness lies in the power and range of the intellect, how far in the strength of the will, how far in elevation of view and aim and purpose, this is a question too large to be debated here. But of Abraham Lincoln it may be truly said that in his greatness all three elements were present. He had not the brilliance, either in thought or word or act, that dazzles, nor the restless activity that occasionally pushes to the front even persons with gifts not of the first order. He was a patient, thoughtful, melancholy man, whose intelligence, working sometimes slowly, but always steadily and surely, was capacious enough to embrace and vigorous enough to master the incomparably difficult facts and problems he was called to deal with. His executive talent showed itself not in sudden and startling strokes but in the calm serenity with which he formed his judgments and laid his plans, in the undismayed firmness with which he adhered to them in the face of popular clamor, of conflicting counsels from his advisers, sometimes, even, of what others deemed all but hopeless failure. These were the qualities needed in one who had to pilot the republic through the heaviest storm that had ever broken upon it. But the mainspring of his power, and the truest evidence of his greatness, lay in the nobility of his aims, in the fervor of his

1 Albert Bushnell Hart, School Books and International Prejudices.

« ElőzőTovább »