On the Art of Writing - Lectures delivered in the University of Cambridge 1913-1914 by Sir Arthur Thomas Quiller-Couch
page 117 of 236 (49%)
page 117 of 236 (49%)
![]() | ![]() |
|
else for writing it in the English tongue, this answer I may make him,
that what the best of the realm think it honest for them to use, I, one of the meanest sort, ought not to suppose it vile for me to write... And as for the Latin or Greek tongue, everything is so excellently done in them that none can do better. In the English tongue, contrary, everything in a manner so meanly, both for the matter and the handling, that no man can do worse. On the other hand you have Euphuism with its antithetical tricks and poises, taking all prose by storm for a time: Euphuism, to be revived two hundred years later, and find a new avatar in the Johnsonian balance; Euphuism, dead now, yet alive enough in its day. For all these writers were alive: and I tell you it is an inspiriting thing to be alive and trying to write English. All these authors were alive and trying to _do_ something. Unconsciously for the most part they were striving to philosophise the vocabulary of English prose and find a rhythm for its periods. And then, as already had happened to our Verse, to our Prose too there befel a miracle. You will not ask me 'What miracle?' I mean, of course, the Authorised Version of the Bible. I grant you, to be sure, that the path to the Authorised Version was made straight by previous translators, notably by William Tyndale. I grant you that Tyndale was a man of genius, and Wyclif before him a man of genius. I grant you that the forty-seven men who produced the Authorised Version worked in the main upon Tyndale's version, taking that for their basis. |
|