his conceptions through the medium of language. It depends upon the
choice of words and their arrangement to convey a meaning. Scarcely any
two writers have exactly the same style, that is to say, express their
ideas after the same peculiar form, just as no two mortals are fashioned
by nature in the same mould, so that one is an exact counterpart of the
other.

Just as men differ in the accent and tones of their voices, so do they
differ in the construction of their language.

Two reporters sent out on the same mission, say to report a fire, will
verbally differ in their accounts though materially both descriptions
will be the same as far as the leading facts are concerned. One will
express himself in a style _different_ from the other.

If you are asked to describe the dancing of a red-haired lady at the last
charity ball you can either say--"The ruby Circe, with the Titian locks
glowing like the oriflamme which surrounds the golden god of day as he
sinks to rest amid the crimson glory of the burnished West, gave a divine
exhibition of the Terpsichorean art which thrilled the souls of the
multitude" or, you can simply say--"The red-haired lady danced very well
and pleased the audience."

The former is a specimen of the ultra florid or bombastic style which may
be said to depend upon the pomposity of verbosity for its effect, the
latter is a specimen of simple _natural_ Style. Needless to say it is to
be preferred. The other should be avoided. It stamps the writer as a
person of shallowness, ignorance and inexperience. It has been eliminated
from the newspapers. Even the most flatulent of yellow sheets no longer
tolerate it in their columns. Affectation and pedantry in style are now