resources of style.  These suggest staccato effects, hard outlines, and that does not at all represent the prose of this writer.  It is a fine, delicately interwoven, tissue-like fabric, pliant and supple.  If one were in the secret of M. Bergson’s private thoughts, it might be discovered that he does not admire his style so much as others do, for his whole manner of thought must, one suspects, have led him often to attempt to express the inexpressible.  The ocean of life, that fluide bienfaisant in which we are immersed, has no doubt often proved too fluid even for him.  “Only the understanding has a language,” he almost ruefully declares in L’Evolution creatrice; and the understanding is, for him, compared with intuition peu de chose.  Yet we can say that in what he has achieved his success is remarkable.  The web of language which he weaves seems to fit and follow the movements of his thought as the skin ripples over the moving muscles of the thoroughbred.  And this is not an accidental or trivial fact.  M. Bergson may possibly agree with Seneca that “too much attention to style does not become a philosopher,” but the quality of his thought and temperament does not allow him to express himself otherwise than lucidly.  Take this, almost at random, as a characteristic example.  It must be given, of course, in the original: 

L’intelligence humaine, telle que nous la representons, n’est point du tout celle que nous montrait Platon dans l’allegorie de la caverne.  Elle n’a pas plus pour fonction de regarder passer des ombres vaines que de contempler, en se retournant derriere elle, l’astre eblouissant.  Elle a autre chose a faire.  Atteles comme des boeufs de labour, a une lourde tache, nous sentons le jeu de nos muscles et de nos articulations, le poids de la charrue et la resistance du sol:  agir et se savoir agir, entrer en contact avec la realite et meme la vivre, mais dans la measure seulement ou elle interesse l’oeuvre qui s’accomplit et le sillon qui se creuse, voila la fonction de l’intelligence humaine.”

That is sufficiently clear; we may legitimately doubt whether it is an adequate account of the function of the human intelligence, but we cannot be in any doubt as to what the view is; and more than that, once we have become acquainted with it, we are not likely to forget it.

For the student as yet unpractised in philosophical reflection, Bergson’s skill and clarity of statement, his fertility in illustration, his frequent and picturesque use of analogy may be a pitfall.  It all sounds so convincing and right, as Bergson puts it, that the critical faculty is put to sleep.  There is peril in this, particularly here, where we have to deal with so bold and even revolutionary a doctrine.  If we are able to retain our independence of judgment we are bound sooner or later, in spite of Bergson’s persuasiveness, to have our misgivings.  After all, we may begin to reflect, he has been too successful, he has proved too much.  In attempting to use,