mark twain, a biography, 1907-1910-第48部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


immortal　by　means　of　stately　and　indestructible　memorials。

2。　　The　common　father　of　mankind　has　been　suffered　to　lie　in　entire
neglect；　although　even　the　Father　of　our　Country　has　now；　and　has　had　for
many　years；　a　monument　in　course　of　construction。

3。　　No　right…feeling　human　being　can　desire　to　see　this　neglect
continued；　but　all　just　men；　even　to　the　farthest　regions　of　the　globe；
should　and　will　rejoice　to　know　that　he　to　whom　we　owe　existence　is　about
to　have　reverent　and　fitting　recognition　of　his　works　at　the　hands　of　the
people　of　Elmira。　　His　labors　were　not　in　behalf　of　one　locality；　but　for
the　extension　of　humanity　at　large　and　the　blessings　which　go　therewith；
hence　all　races　and　all　colors　and　all　religions　are　interested　in　seeing
that　his　name　and　fame　shall　be　placed　beyond　the　reach　of　the　blight　of
oblivion　by　a　permanent　and　suitable　monument。

4。　　It　will　be　to　the　imperishable　credit　of　the　United　States　if　this
monument　shall　be　set　up　within　her　borders；　moreover；　it　will　be　a
peculiar　grace　to　the　beneficiary　if　this　testimonial　of　affection　and
gratitude　shall　be　the　gift　of　the　youngest　of　the　nations　that　have
sprung　from　his　loins　after　6；000　years　of　unappreciation　on　the　part　of
its　elders。

5。　　The　idea　of　this　sacred　enterprise　having　originated　in　the　city　of
Elmira；　she　will　be　always　grateful　if　the　general　government　shall
encourage　her　in　the　good　work　by　securing　to　her　a　certain　advantage
through　the　exercise　of　its　great　authority。

Therefore；　Your　petitioners　beg　that　your　honorable　body　will　be　pleased
to　issue　a　decree　restricting　to　Elmira　the　right　to　build　a　monument　to
Adam　and　inflicting　a　heavy　penalty　upon　any　other　community　within　the
United　States　that　shall　propose　or　attempt　to　erect　a　monument　or　other
memorial　to　the　said　Adam；　and　to　this　end　we　will　ever　pray。

NAMES：　（100　signatures）







APPENDIX　Q

GENERAL　GRANT'S　GRAMMAR

（Written　in　1886。　　Delivered　at　an　Army　and　Navy　Club　dinner　in　New　York
City）

Lately　a　great　and　honored　author；　Matthew　Arnold；　has　been　finding　fault
with　General　Grant's　English。　　That　would　be　fair　enough；　maybe；　if　the
examples　of　imperfect　English　averaged　more　instances　to　the　page　in
General　Grant's　book　than　they　do　in　Arnold's　criticism　on　the　bookbut
they　do　not。　　It　would　be　fair　enough；　maybe；　if　such　instances　were
commoner　in　General　Grant's　book　than　they　are　in　the　works　of　the
average　standard　authorbut　they　are　not。　　In　fact；　General　Grant's
derelictions　in　the　matter　of　grammar　and　construction　are　not　more
frequent　than　such　derelictions　in　the　works　of　a　majority　of　the
professional　authors　of　our　time；　and　of　all　previous　timesauthors　as
exclusively　and　painstakingly　trained　to　the　literary　trade　as　was
General　Grant　to　the　trade　of　war。　　This　is　not　a　random　statement：　it　is
a　fact；　and　easily　demonstrable。　　I　have　a　book　at　home　called　Modern
English　Literature：　Its　Blemishes　and　Defects；　by　Henry　H。　Breen；　a
countryman　of　Mr。　Arnold。　　In　it　I　find　examples　of　bad　grammar　and
slovenly　English　from　the　pens　of　Sydney　Smith；　Sheridan；　Hallam；
Whately；　Carlyle；　Disraeli；　Allison；　Junius；　Blair；　Macaulay；
Shakespeare；　Milton；　Gibbon；　Southey；　Lamb；　Landor；　Smollett；　Walpole；
Walker　（of　the　dictionary）；　Christopher　North；　Kirk　White；　Benjamin
Franklin；　Sir　Walter　Scott；　and　Mr。　Lindley　Murray　（who　made　the
grammar）。

In　Mr。　Arnold's　criticism　on　General　Grant's　book　we　find　two　grammatical
crimes　and　more　than　several　examples　of　very　crude　and　slovenly　English；
enough　of　them　to　entitle　him　to　a　lofty　place　in　the　illustrious　list　of
delinquents　just　named。

The　following　passage　all　by　itself　ought　to　elect　him：
　　　　　〃Meade　suggested　to　Grant　that　he　might　wish　to　have　immediately
　　　　　under　him　Sherman；　who　had　been　serving　with　Grant　in　the　West。　　He
　　　　　begged　him　not　to　hesitate　if　he　thought　it　for　the　good　of　the
　　　　　service。　　Grant　assured　him　that　he　had　not　thought　of　moving　him；
　　　　　and　in　his　memoirs；　after　relating　what　had　passed；　he　adds；　etc。〃　　

To　read　that　passage　a　couple　of　times　would　make　a　man　dizzy；　to　read　it
four　times　would　make　him　drunk。

Mr。　Breen　makes　this　discriminating　remark：　〃To　suppose　that　because　a
man　is　a　poet　or　a　historian　he　must　be　correct　in　his　grammar　is　to
suppose　that　an　architect　must　be　a　joiner；　or　a　physician　a　compounder
of　medicine。〃

People　may　hunt　out　what　microscopic　motes　they　please；　but；　after　all；
the　fact　remains；　and　cannot　be　dislodged；　that　General　Grant's　book　is　a
great　and；　in　its　peculiar　department；　a　unique　and　unapproachable
literary　masterpiece。　　In　their　line　there　is　no　higher　literature　than
those　modest；　simple　memoirs。　　Their　style　is　at　least　flawless　and　no
man　could　improve　upon　it；　and　great　books　are　weighed　and　measured　by
their　style　and　matter；　and　not　by　the　trimmings　and　shadings　of　their
grammar。

There　is　that　about　the　sun　which　makes　us　forget　his　spots；　and　when　we
think　of　General　Grant　our　pulses　quicken　and　his　grammar　vanishes；　we
only　remember　that　this　is　the　simple　soldier　who；　all　untaught　of　the
silken　phrase…makers；　linked　words　together　with　an　art　surpassing　the
art　of　the　schools　and　put　into　them　a　something　which　will　still　bring
to　American　ears；　as　long　as　America　shall　last；　the　roll　of　his　vanished
drums　and　the　tread　of　his　marching　hosts。　　What　do　we　care　for　grammar
when　we　think　of　those　thunderous　phrases；　〃Unconditional　and　immediate
surrender；〃　　〃I　propose　to　move　immediately　upon　your　works；〃　　〃I　propose
to　fight　it　out　on　this　line　if　it　takes　all　summer。〃　　Mr。　Arnold　would
doubtless　claim　that　that　last　phrase　is　not　strictly　grammatical；　and
yet　it　did　certainly　wake　up　this　nation　as　a　hundred　million　tons　of　A…
number…one　fourth…proof；　hard…boiled；　hide…bound　grammar　from　another
mouth　could　not　have　done。　　And　finally　we　have　that　gentler　phrase；　that
one　which　shows　you　another　true　side　of　the　man；　shows　you　that　in　his
soldier　heart　there　was　room　for　other　than　gory　war　mottoes　and　in　his
tongue　the　gift　to　fitly　phrase　them：　〃Let　us　have　peace。〃






APPENDIX　R

PARTY　ALLEGIANCE

BEING　A　PORTION　OF　A　PAPER　ON　〃CONSISTENCY；〃　READ　BEFORE　THE　MONDAY
EVENING　CLUB　IN　1887

（See　Chapter　clxiii）

。　　。　　。　　I　have　referred　to　the　fact　that　when　a　man　retires　from　his
political　party　he　is　a　traitorthat　he　is　so　pronounced　in　plain
language。　　That　is　bold；　so　bold　as　to　deceive　many　into　the　fancy　that
it　is　true。　　Desertion；　treasonthese　are　the　terms　applied。　　Their
military　form　reveals　the　thought　in　the　man's　mind　who　uses　them：　to　him
a　political　party　is　an　army。　　Well；　is　it？　　Are　the　two　things
identical？　　Do　they　even　resemble　each　other？　　Necessarily　a　political
party　is　not　an　army　of　conscripts；　for　they　are　in　the　ranks　by
compulsion。　　Then　it　must　be　a　regular　army　or　an　army　of　volunteers。
Is　it　a　regular　army？　　No；　for　these　enlist　for　a　specified　and　well…
understood　term；　and　can　retire　without　reproach　when　the　term　is　up。
Is　it　an　army　of　volunteers　who　have　enlisted　for　the　war；　and　may
righteously　be　shot　if　they　leave　before　the　war　is　finished？　　No；　it　is
not　even　an　army　in　that　sense。　　Those　fine　military　terms　are　high…
sounding；　empty　lies；　and　are　no　more　rationally　applicable　to　a
political　party　than　they　would　be　to　an　oyster…bed。　　The　volunteer
soldier　comes　to　the　recruiting　office　and　strips　himself　and　proves　that
he　is　so　many　feet　high；　and　has　sufficiently　good　teeth；　and　no　fingers
gone；　and　is　sufficiently　sound　in　body　generally；　he　is　accepted；　but
not　until　he　has　sworn　a　deep　oath　or　made　other　solemn　form　of　promise
to　march　under；　that　flag　until　that　war　is　done　or　his　term　of
enlistment　completed。　　What　is　the　process　when　a　voter　joins　a　party？　
Must　he　prove　that　he　is　sound　in　any　way；　mind　or　body？　　Must　he　prove
that　he　knows　anythingis　capable　of　anythingwhatever？　　Does　he　take
an　oath　or　make　a　promise　of　any　sort？or　doesn't　he　leave　himself
entirely　free？　　If　he　were　informed　by　the　political　boss　that　if　he
join；　it　must　be　forever；　that　he　must　be　that　party's　chattel　and　wear
its　brass　collar　the　rest　of　his　dayswould　not　that　insult　him？　　It
goes　without　saying。　　He　would　say　some　rude；　unprintable　thing；　and　turn
his　back　on　that　preposterous　organization。　　But　the　political　boss　puts
no　conditions　upon　him　at　all；　and　this　volunteer　makes　no　promises；
enlists　for　no　stated　term。　　He　has　in　no　sense　become　a　part　of　an　army；
he　is　in　no　way　restrained　of　his　freedom。　　Yet　he　will　presently　find
that　his　bosses　and　his　newspapers　have　assumed　just　the　reverse　of　that：
that　they　have　blandly　arrogated　to　themselves　an　ironclad　military
authority　over　him；　and　within　twelve　months；　if　he　is　an　average　man；　he
will　have　surrendered　his　liberty；　and　will　actually　be　silly　enough　to
believe　that　he　cannot　leave　that　party；　for　any　cause　whatever；　without
being　a　shameful　traitor；　a　deserter；　a　legitimately　dishonored　man。

There　you　have　the　just　measure　of　that　freedom　of　conscience；　freedom　of
opinion；　freedom　of　speech　and　action　which　we　hear　so　much　inflated
foolishness　about　as　being　the　precious　possession　of　the　republic。　
Whereas；　in　truth；　the　surest　way　for　a　man　to　make　of　himself　a　target
for　almost　universal　scorn；　obloquy；　slander；　and　insult　is　to　stop
twaddling　about　these　priceless　independencies　and　attempt　to　exercise
one　of　them。　　If　he　is　a　preacher　half　his　congregation　will　clamor　for
his　expulsionand　will　expel　him；　except　they　find　it　will　injure　real
estate　in　the　neighborhood；　if　he　is　a　doctor　his　own　dead　will　turn
against　him。

I　repeat　that　the　new　party…member　who　supposed　himself　independent　will
presently　find　that　the　party　have　somehow　got　a　mortgage　on　his　soul；
and　that　within　a　year　he　will　recognize　the　mortgage；　deliver　up　his
liberty；　and　actually　believe　he　cannot　retire　from　that　party　from　any
motive　howsoever　high　and　right　in　his　own　eyes　without　shame　and
dishonor。

Is　it　possible　for　human　wickedness　to　invent　a　doctrine　more　infernal
and　poisonous　than　this？　　Is　there　imaginable　a　baser　servitude　than　it
imposes？