On Language and Style - Ernst Jünger

First published 1980, in “Mehr als Worte”.

Published by Walter Steigner

Language expresses itself in speech; where an answer is found it becomes a conversation. The word is a sharing preceded by something in the speaker. In this sense, every text is first of all a dialogue with itself. This is also evident in everyday life, in every conversation, in every text. A question arises, it is asked or answered with varying degrees of accuracy. This is preceded by a pause. During this pause, the questioner prepares his question and the questioned prepares his answer.

This demands a certain amount of time – objections are considered, statements are made. Much depends on this, as in an interrogation. If the answer is quick, if it sounds “like a gunshot”, we speak of presence of mind. Not everyone is given this, even those who have a great deal to say. Rousseau complained of being at a loss for words when questioned in public.

Everyday conversation is fleeting; it often serves only to entertain. It goes without saying that most discussions cannot tolerate pressure, but this is beyond the point. “Live”¹ implies direct participation, even with the eye; intellectual and physical presence is expected.

Rhetoric and literature operate on different levels. One is concerned with action, the other with presentation. Famous speeches given at the agora and forum, in the convent or St Paul’s, seem unfinished, even unpalatable when read; the fire has gone out, only ashes remain. Plutarch’s great speeches give the impression that they have been edited and stylised after the fact – Shakespeare elevated them to the rank of poetry. The poet has touched the essence of what once stirred and then faded away, it thus becomes something fruitful beyond time and nation.

The soliloquy of the poet, that solitary figure who, in Trakl’s words, “conceives justice in his chamber,” is not intended for communication – rather it should be said that such intention, above all, weakens poetry. Most texts read as if someone, or even many people, were looking over the author’s shoulder. They are untenable because the rhetorical element outweighs the literary element.

This is not to say anything against intention. It too has its merits: in the case of a politician, an educator, or a pure entertainer, it should come first. In this case, excessive stylistic effort can even do harm. In Parliament, a rehearsed presentation will have less effect than the free word. A speaker who has made little contribution to the subject, but has enjoyed his words, will gain nothing but success in the form of appreciation. “It was a pleasure listening to you.” This, among other things, contributed to the downfall of the Gironde.

If Schopenhauer - who believed that royalties, bans on reprints, and freedom of the press were the death of literature - reduces the journalist to a mere day labourer, we cannot agree with him. The journalist has his own particular measure of time, his own office that we cannot do without. Nevertheless, there are texts that stand the test of time, not so much in the political sections of newspapers as in serials. There the will prevails, here the vision. The difference was already evident in Schopenhauer’s time, for example, when comparing Kott’s “Allgemeiner Zeitung” and “Morgenblatt”. Although even here there are exceptions – for example, Heine’s Paris Letters, published in the politically focused “Allgemeinen.”

*

Language therefore has different layers and different tasks. They range from mere comprehension to poetry. It has been said: “The style is the man”, or that language is the physiognomy of the mind. At every stage, in every place, it is important for the individual to sufficiently master it and thus give his share of the universal. It is not demanded of him that he speak well, but that he stay to the last. There is also arrogance in speech, Molière describes this in “Précieuses Ridicules”.

On the other hand, the more we expect of a partner the more painful an offending expression becomes. An example is Fontane’s constant confusion of “although” and “nevertheless”. It is like a splinter in fine furniture.

The same cannot be said for the erasure of verb forms as with the subjunctive and perfect tense, and the omission of the “e” in many endings. These represent a general thinning of the language, perhaps as a consequence of age; we must be content with the loss. The sequence of tenses can be maintained by adverbs and conjunctions, and the loss of vowels can be compensated for by strengthening the emphasis. It is astonishing what English poetry can accomplish in spite of its profound decline. Such precision as Schopenhauer demands in his essay “Writing and Style” seems archaic today. It is to be expected that a writer will harmonise what he intends to say with what he expresses, i.e., the content and form.

*

Language forms a barrier: it sets the dam that determines the level of culture. If it is removed, the level falls. This does not mean that the difference between those who speak well and those who speak badly diminishes – it rather increases.

It does not serve the student to have grammar and spelling moulded into forms, as if passed easily through a machine. When he understands seemingly minor differences - for example, between “widerstehen” and “wieder stehen”, or between “rechthaberisch sein” and “Recht haben” - he has achieved not only a logical achievement, as in math, but an organic achievement. It takes a great deal of work and repetition to teach him to make such distinctions, but it will help him in every situation and profession just as in speaking and writing.

*

Language is like water - it may be cloudy, but it has self-purifying power. The individual has always revitalised it – Cicero, Luther, Klopstock. In language, freedom reigns - everyone may speak and write as he wishes and is able. But “even Caesar is not above grammar” - in other words, it does not fall within the domain of the state and its regulations, much less the technocrat, who intends to facilitate clarity and ease.

Here, too, a “grüne Front” needs to be formed.

1. English in the original.