- cation of standard texts and the question of adaptation
to younger and older audiences will be considered later.
Are we not inconsistent in our attitude toward form in language? We profess to recognize reverently an intimate relation between the matter and the manner in the sculptor's, the painter's, the musician's art. But we constantly deny any integrity to language as a medium of expression. We do not, to be sure, attempt to tamper with the form the great poets gave their message. Indeed we "get" the verse running through the simple prose tale, although it is scarcely less artless than is the prose. But everyone because he can speak in words appears to feel competent to tell the prose body of the stories in "his own words." Now, every word in the folktale may not be so necessary to its thought as very minute details in Shakespeare's or even in Kipling's or Andersen's or Stockton's form are considered to his thought. But there is such a thing as folk-story style, easy, loose sentence liberally sprinkled with ands and sos, picture-making word, distinctive epithet, recurrent jingle, rhythmic swing. It is surprising how insensible students are to it. Yet it is due largely, no doubt, to the best of all causes, the belief that the story is to be given living form by the teller. Dull rote memorizing will not
