of the gestures and manners of an acquaintance. You know the man whose
demeanour is "always calm," but whose passions are strong. How do you know
that his passions are strong? Because he "gives them away"
by some small, but important, part of his demeanour, such as
the twitching of a lip or the whitening of the knuckles caused by
clenching the hand. In other words, his demeanour, fundamentally,
is not calm. You know the man who is always "smoothly polite
and agreeable," but who affects you unpleasantly. Why does he
affect you unpleasantly? Because he is tedious, and therefore disagreeable,
and because his politeness is not real politeness. You know the man
who is awkward, shy, clumsy, but who, nevertheless, impresses you
with a sense of dignity and force. Why? Because mingled with
that awkwardness and so forth *is* dignity. You know the blunt,
rough fellow whom you instinctively guess to be affectionate--
because there is "something in his tone" or "something in his eyes."
In every instance the demeanour, while perhaps seeming to be contrary
to the character, is really in accord with it. The demeanour never
contradicts the character. It is one part of the character
that contradicts another part of the character. For, after all,
the blunt man *is* blunt, and the awkward man *is* awkward,
and these characteristics are defects. The demeanour merely expresses them.
The two men would be better if, while conserving their good qualities,
they had the superficial attributes of smoothness and agreeableness
possessed by the gentleman who is unpleasant to you.
And as regards this latter, it is not his superficial attributes
which are unpleasant to you; but his other qualities. In the end
the character is shown in the demeanour; and the demeanour
is a consequence of the character and resembles the character.
So with style and matter. You may argue that the blunt,
rough man's demeanour is unfair to his tenderness. I do not think so.