Numbers in brackets refer to the Rules.
*1. Use words in their proper sense.*
Write, not "His apparent guilt justified his friends in disowning
him," but "his evident guilt." "Conscious" and "aware," "unnatural"
and "supernatural," "transpire" and "occur," "circumstance" and
"event," "reverse" and "converse," "eliminate" and "elicit," are often
confused together.
This rule forbids the use of the same word in different senses. "It is
in my power to refuse your request, and since I have power to do
this, I may lawfully do it." Here the second "power" is used for
"authority."
This rule also forbids the slovenly use of "nice," "awfully,"
"delicious," "glorious," &c. See (2).
*2. Avoid exaggerations.*
"The boundless plains in the heart of the empire furnished
inexhaustible supplies of corn, that would have almost sufficed for
twice the population."
Here "inexhaustible" is inconsistent with what follows. The words
"unprecedented," "incalculable," "very," and "stupendous" are often
used in the same loose way.
*3. Avoid useless circumlocution and "fine writing."*
"Her Majesty here partook of lunch." Write "lunched."
"Partook of" implies sharing, and is incorrect as well as lengthy.
So, do not use "apex" for "top," "species" for "kind," "individual"
for "man," "assist" for "help," &c.
*4. Be careful how you use the following words: "not … and," "any,"
"only," "not … or," "that."*[5]
*And.* See below, "Or."
*Any.*—"I am not bound to receive any messenger that you send."
Does this mean every, or a single? Use "every" or "a single."
*Not.*—(1) "I do not intend to help you, because you are my enemy
&c." ought to mean (2), "I intend not to help you, and my reason for
not helping you is, because you are my enemy." But it is often wrongly
used to mean (3), "I intend to help you, not because you are my enemy
(but because you are poor, blind, &c.)." In the latter case, not
ought to be separated from intend. By distinctly marking the limits
to which the influence of not extends, the ambiguity may be removed.
*Only* is often used ambiguously for alone. "The rest help me to
revenge myself; you only advise me to wait." This ought to mean,
"you only advise, instead of helping;" but in similar sentences
"you only" is often used for "you alone." But see 21.
*Or.*—When "or" is preceded by a negative, as "I do not want butter
or honey," "or" ought not, strictly speaking, to be used like "and,"
nor like "nor." The strict use of "not … or" would be as follows:—
"You say you don't want both butter and honey—you want butter or
honey; I, on the contrary, do not want butter or honey—I want them
both."
Practically, however, this meaning is so rare, that "I don't want
butter or honey" is regularly used for "I want neither butter nor
honey." But where there is the slightest danger of ambiguity, it is
desirable to use nor.
The same ambiguity attends "not … and." "I do not see Thomas and
John" is commonly used for "I see neither Thomas nor John;" but it
might mean, "I do not see them both—I see only one of them."
*That.*—The different uses of "that" produce much ambiguity, e.g.
"I am so much surprised by this statement that I am desirous of
resigning, that I scarcely know what reply to make." Here it is
impossible to tell, till one has read past "resigning," whether the
first "that" depends upon "so" or "statement." Write: "The statement
that I am desirous of resigning surprises me so much that I scarcely
know &c."
*4 a. Be careful in the use of ambiguous words, e.g. "certain."*
"Certain" is often used for "some," as in "Independently of his
earnings, he has a certain property," where the meaning might be
"unfailing."
Under this head may be mentioned the double use of words, such as
"left" in the same form and sound, but different in meaning. Even
where there is no obscurity, the juxtaposition of the same word twice
used in two senses is inelegant, e.g. (Bain), "He turned to the
left and left the room."
I have known the following slovenly sentence misunderstood: "Our
object is that, with the aid of practice, we may sometime arrive at
the point where we think eloquence in its most praiseworthy form to
lie." "To lie" has been supposed to mean "to deceive."
*5. Be careful how you use "he," "it," "they," "these," &c.* (For
"which" see 8.) The ambiguity arising from the use of he applying to
different persons is well known.
"He told his friend that if he did not feel better in half an hour
he thought he had better return." See (6) for remedy.
Much ambiguity is also caused by excessive use of such phrases as in
this way, of this sort, &c.
"God, foreseeing the disorders of human nature, has given us certain
passions and affections which arise from, or whose objects are, these
disorders. Of this sort are fear, resentment, compassion."
Repeat the noun: "Among these passions and affections are fear &c."
Two distinct uses of it may be noted. It, when referring to
something that precedes, may be called "retrospective;" but when to
something that follows, "prospective." In "Avoid indiscriminate
charity: it is a crime," "it" is retrospective.[6] In "It is a
crime to give indiscriminately," "it" is prospective.
The prospective "it," if productive of ambiguity, can often be omitted
by using the infinitive as a subject: "To give indiscriminately is a
crime."
*6. Report a speech in the First, not the Third Person, where
necessary to avoid ambiguity.* Speeches in the third person afford a
particular, though very common case, of the general ambiguity
mentioned in (5). Instead of "He told his friend that if he did not
feel better &c.," write "He said to his friend, 'If, I (or you)
don't feel better &c.'"
*6 a. Sometimes, where the writer cannot know the exact words, or
where the exact words are unimportant, or lengthy and uninteresting,
the Third Person is preferable.* Thus, where Essex is asking Sir
Robert Cecil that Francis Bacon may be appointed Attorney-General, the
dialogue is (as it almost always is in Lord Macaulay's writings) in
the First Person, except where it becomes tedious and uninteresting
so as to require condensation, and then it drops into the Third
Person:
"Sir Robert had nothing to say but that he thought his own abilities
equal to the place which he hoped to obtain, and that his father's
long services deserved such a mark of gratitude from the Queen."
*6 b. Omission of "that" in a speech reported in the Third
Person.*—Even when a speech is reported in the third person, "that"
need not always be inserted before the dependent verb. Thus, instead
of "He said that he took it ill that his promises were not believed,"
we may write, "'He took it ill,' he said, 'that &c.'" This gives a
little more life, and sometimes more clearness also.
*7. When you use a Participle, as "walking," implying "when," "while,"
"though," "that," make it clear by the context what is implied.*
"Republics, in the first instance, are never desired for their own
sakes. I do not think they will finally be desired at all,
unaccompanied by courtly graces and good breeding."
Here there is a little doubt whether the meaning is "since they are,
or, if they are, unaccompanied."
*That or when.*—"Men walking (that walk, or when they walk) on
ice sometimes fall."
It is better to use "men walking" to mean "men when they walk." If
the relative is meant, use "men that walk," instead of the participle.
(1) "While he was } Walking on { (1) the road, } he fell."
(2) "Because he was } { (2) the ice, }
When the participle precedes the subject, it generally implies a
cause: "Seeing this, he retired." Otherwise it generally has its
proper participial meaning, e.g. "He retired, keeping his face
towards us." If there is any ambiguity, write "on seeing,"—"at the
same time, or while, keeping."
(1) "Though he was} {(1) he nevertheless stood
} { his ground."
(2) "Since he was } Struck with terror, {(2) he rapidly retreated."
(3) "If he is } {(3) he will soon retreat."
*8. When using the Relative Pronoun, use "who" and "which" where the
meaning is "and he, it, &c.," "for he, it, &c." In other cases use
"that," if euphony allows.*
"I heard this from the inspector, who (and he) heard it from the
guard that travelled with the train."
"Fetch me (all) the books that lie on the table, and also the
pamphlets, which (and these) you will find on the floor."
An adherence to this rule would remove much ambiguity. Thus: "There
was a public-house next door, which was a great nuisance," means
"and this (i.e. the fact of its being next door) was a great
nuisance;" whereas that would have meant "Next door was a
public-house that (i.e. the public-house) was a great nuisance."
*"Who," "which," &c. introduce a new fact about the antecedent,
whereas "that" introduces something without which the antecedent is
incomplete or undefined.* Thus, in the first example above,
"inspector" is complete in itself, and "who" introduces a new fact
about him; "guard" is incomplete, and requires "that travelled with
the train" to complete the meaning.
It is not, and cannot be, maintained that this rule, though observed
in Elizabethan English, is observed by our best modern authors.
(Probably a general impression that "that" cannot be used to refer to
persons has assisted "who" in supplanting "that" as a relative.) But
the convenience of the rule is so great that beginners in composition
may with advantage adhere to the rule. The following are some of the
cases where who and which are mostly used, contrary to the rule,
instead of that.
*Exceptions:*—
(a) When the antecedent is defined, e.g. by a possessive case,
modern English uses who instead of that. It is rare, though it
would be useful,[7] to say "His English friends that had not seen
him" for "the English friends, or those of his English friends, that
had not seen him."
(b) That sounds ill when separated from its verb and from its
antecedents, and emphasized by isolation: "There are many persons
that, though unscrupulous, are commonly good-tempered, and that,
if not strongly incited by self-interest, are ready for the most part
to think of the interest of their neighbours." Shakespeare frequently
uses who after that when the relative is repeated. See
"Shakespearian Grammar," par. 260.
(c) If the antecedent is qualified by that, the relative must not
be that. Besides other considerations, the repetition is
disagreeable. Addison ridicules such language as "That remark that
I made yesterday is not that that I said that I regretted that
I had made."
(d) That cannot be preceded by a preposition, and hence throws the
preposition to the end. "This is the rule that I adhere to." This
is perfectly good English, though sometimes unnecessarily avoided.
But, with some prepositions, the construction is harsh and
objectionable, e.g. "This is the mark that I jumped beyond,"
"Such were the prejudices that he rose above." The reason is that
some of these disyllabic prepositions are used as adverbs, and, when
separated from their nouns, give one the impression that they are used
as adverbs.
(e) After pronominal adjectives used for personal pronouns, modern
English prefers who. "There are many, others, several, those, who
can testify &c."
(f) After that used as a conjunction there is sometimes a dislike
to use that as a relative. See (c).
*9. Do not use redundant "and" before "which."[8]*
"I gave him a very interesting book for a present, and which cost me
five shillings."
In short sentences the absurdity is evident, but in long sentences it
is less evident, and very common.
"A petition was presented for rescinding that portion of the bye-laws
which permits application of public money to support sectarian
schools over which ratepayers have no control, this being a violation
of the principle of civil and religious liberty, and which the
memorialists believe would provoke a determined and conscientious
resistance."
Here which ought grammatically to refer to "portion" or "schools."
But it seems intended to refer to "violation." Omit "and," or repeat
"a violation" before "which," or turn the sentence otherwise.
*10. Equivalents for Relative.*
*(a) Participle.*—"Men thirsting (for 'men that thirst') for
revenge are not indifferent to plunder." The objection to the
participle is that here, as often, it creates a little ambiguity. The
above sentence may mean, "men, when they thirst," or "though they
thirst," as well as "men that thirst." Often however there is no
ambiguity: "I have documents proving this conclusively."
*(b) Infinitive.*—Instead of "He was the first that entered" you
can write "to enter;" for "He is not a man who will act
dishonestly," "to act." This equivalent cannot often be used.
*(c) Whereby, wherein, &c.,* can sometimes be used for "by which,"
"in which," so as to avoid a harsh repetition of "which." "The
means whereby this may be effected." But this use is somewhat
antiquated.
*(d) If.*—"The man that does not care for music is to be pitied"
can be written (though not so forcibly), "If a man does not care for
music, he is to be pitied." It is in long sentences that this
equivalent will be found most useful.
*(e) And this.*—"He did his best, which was all that could be
expected," can be written, "and this was all that, &c."
*(f) What.*—"Let me repeat that which[9] you ought to know, that
that which is worth doing is worth doing well." "Let me repeat,
what you ought to know, that what is worth doing is worth doing
well."
*(g) Omission of Relative.*—It is sometimes thought ungrammatical
to omit the relative, as in "The man (that) you speak of." On the
contrary, that when an object (not when a subject) may be omitted,
wherever the antecedent and the subject of the relative sentence are
brought into juxtaposition by the omission.
*10 a'. Repeat the Antecedent in some new form, where there is any
ambiguity.* This is particularly useful after a negative: "He said
that he would not even hear me, which I confess I had expected."
Here the meaning may be, "I had expected that he would," or "that he
would not, hear me." Write, "a refusal, or, a favour, that I
confess I had expected." See (38).
*11. Use particular for general terms.*—This is a most important
rule. Instead of "I have neither the necessaries of life nor the means
of procuring them," write (if you can with truth), "I have not a
crust of bread, nor a penny to buy one."
CAUTION.—There is a danger in this use. The meaning is vividly
expressed but sometimes may be exaggerated or imperfect. Crust of
bread may be an exaggeration; on the other hand, if the speaker is
destitute not only of bread, but also of shelter and clothing, then
crust of bread is an imperfect expression of the meaning.
In philosophy and science, where the language ought very often to be
inclusive and brief, general and not particular terms must be used.
*11 a. Avoid Verbal Nouns where Verbs can be used instead.* The
disadvantage of the use of Verbal Nouns is this, that, unless they are
immediately preceded by prepositions, they are sometimes liable to be
confounded with participles. The following is an instance of an
excessive use of Verbal Nouns:
"The pretended confession of the secretary was only collusion to lay
the jealousies of the king's favouring popery, which still hung upon
him, notwithstanding his writing on the Revelation, and affecting
to enter on all occasions into controversy, asserting in particular
that the Pope was Antichrist."
Write "notwithstanding that he wrote and affected &c."
*12. Use a particular Person instead of a class.*
"What is the splendour of the greatest monarch compared with the
beauty of a flower?" "What is the splendour of Solomon compared with
the beauty of a daisy?"
Under this head may come the forcible use of Noun for Adjective: "This
fortress is weakness itself."
An excess of this use is lengthy and pedantically bombastic, e.g.,
the following paraphrase for "in every British colony:"—"under Indian
palm-groves, amid Australian gum-trees, in the shadow of African
mimosas, and beneath Canadian pines."
*13. Use Metaphor instead of literal statement.*
"The ship ploughs the sea" is clearer than "the ship cleaves the
sea," and shorter than "the ship cleaves the sea as a plough
cleaves the land."
Of course there are some subjects for which Metaphor should not be
used. See (14 a) and (14 b).
*14. Do not confuse Metaphor.*
"In a moment the thunderbolt was upon them, deluging their country
with invaders."
The following is attributed to Sir Boyle Roche: "Mr. Speaker, I smell
a rat, I see him brewing in the air; but, mark me, I shall yet nip him
in the bud."
Some words, once metaphorical, have ceased to be so regarded. Hence
many good writers say "under these circumstances" instead of "in
these circumstances."
An excessive regard for disused metaphor savours of pedantry:
disregard is inelegant. Write, not, "unparalleled complications,"
but "unprecedented complications;" and "he threw light on
obscurities," instead of "he unravelled obscurities."
*14 a. Do not introduce literal statement immediately after Metaphor.*
"He was the father of Chemistry, and brother to the Earl of Cork."
"He was a very thunderbolt of war,
And was lieutenant to the Earl of Mar."
*14 b. Do not use poetic metaphor to illustrate a prosaic subject.*
Thus, we may say "a poet soars," or even, though rarely, "a nation
soars to greatness," but you could not say "Consols soared to
94-1/2." Even commonplace subjects may be illustrated by metaphor: for
it is a metaphor, and quite unobjectionable, to say "Consols
mounted, or jumped to 94-1/2." But commonplace subjects must be
illustrated by metaphor that is commonplace.
*15. Emphatic words must stand in emphatic positions; i.e. for the
most part, at the beginning or at the end of the sentence.* This rule
occasionally supersedes the common rules about position. Thus, the
place for an adverb, as a rule, should be between the subject and
verb: "He quickly left the room;" but if quickly is to be
emphatic, it must come at the beginning or end, as in "I told him to
leave the room slowly, but he left quickly."
Adjectives, in clauses beginning with "if" and "though," often come at
the beginning for emphasis: "Insolent though he was, he was silenced
at last."
*15 a. Unemphatic words must, as a rule, be kept from the end of the
sentence.* It is a common fault to break this rule by placing a short
and unemphatic predicate at the end of a long sentence.
"To know some Latin, even if it be nothing but a few Latin roots, is
useful." Write, "It is useful, &c."
So "the evidence proves how kind to his inferiors he is."
Often, where an adjective or auxiliary verb comes at the end, the
addition of an emphatic adverb justifies the position, e.g. above,
"is very useful," "he has invariably been."
A short "chippy" ending, even though emphatic, is to be avoided. It is
abrupt and unrhythmical, e.g. "The soldier, transfixed with the
spear, writhed." We want a longer ending, "fell writhing to the
ground," or, "writhed in the agonies of death." A "chippy" ending is
common in bad construing from Virgil.
*Exceptions.*—Prepositions and pronouns attached to emphatic words
need not be moved from the end; e.g. "He does no harm that I hear
of." "Bear witness how I loved him."
*N.B. In all styles, especially in letter-writing, a final emphasis
must not be so frequent as to become obtrusive and monotonous.*
*15 b. An interrogation sometimes gives emphasis.* "No one can doubt
that the prisoner, had he been really guilty, would have shown some
signs of remorse," is not so emphatic as "Who can doubt, Is it
possible to doubt, &c.?"
Contrast "No one ever names Wentworth without thinking of &c." with
"But Wentworth,—who ever names him without thinking of those harsh
dark features, ennobled by their expression into more than the majesty
of an antique Jupiter?"
*16. The subject, if unusually emphatic, should often be removed from
the beginning of the sentence.* The beginning of the sentence is an
emphatic position, though mostly not so emphatic as the end. Therefore
the principal subject of a sentence, being emphatic, and being wanted
early in the sentence to tell us what the sentence is about, comes as
a rule, at or near the beginning: "Thomas built this house."
Hence, since the beginning is the usual place for the subject, if we
want to emphasize "Thomas" unusually, we must remove "Thomas" from
the beginning: "This house was built by Thomas," or "It was Thomas
that built this house."
Thus, the emphasis on "conqueror" is not quite so strong in "A mere
conqueror ought not to obtain from us the reverence that is due to
the great benefactors of mankind," as in "We ought not to bestow the
reverence that is due to the great benefactors of mankind, upon a
mere conqueror." Considerable, but less emphasis and greater
smoothness (19) will be obtained by writing the sentence thus: "We
ought not to bestow upon a mere conqueror &c."
Where the same subject stands first in several consecutive sentences,
it rises in emphasis, and need not be removed from the beginning, even
though unusual emphasis be required:
"The captain was the life and soul of the expedition. He first
pointed out the possibility of advancing; he warned them of the
approaching scarcity of provisions; he showed how they might
replenish their exhausted stock &c."
*17. The object is sometimes placed before the verb for emphasis.*
This is most common in antithesis. "Jesus I know, and Paul I know;
but who are ye?" "Some he imprisoned, others he put to death."
Even where there is no antithesis the inversion is not uncommon:
"Military courage, the boast of the sottish German, of the frivolous
and prating Frenchman, of the romantic and arrogant Spaniard, he
neither possesses nor values."
This inversion sometimes creates ambiguity in poetry, e.g. "The son
the father slew," and must be sparingly used in prose.
Sometimes the position of a word may be considered appropriate by
some, and inappropriate by others, according to different
interpretations of the sentence. Take as an example, "Early in the
morning the nobles and gentlemen who attended on the king assembled in
the great hall of the castle; and here they began to talk of what a
dreadful storm it had been the night before. But Macbeth could
scarcely understand what they said, for he was thinking of something
worse." The last sentence has been amended by Professor Bain into
"What they said, Macbeth could scarcely understand." But there
appears to be an antithesis between the guiltless nobles who can think
about the weather, and the guilty Macbeth who cannot. Hence, "what
they said" ought not, and "Macbeth" ought, to be emphasized: and
therefore "Macbeth" ought to be retained at the beginning of the
sentence.
The same author alters, "The praise of judgment Virgil has justly
contested with him, but his invention remains yet unrivalled," into
"Virgil has justly contested with him the praise of judgment, but no
one has yet rivalled his invention"—an alteration which does not seem
to emphasize sufficiently the antithesis between what had been
'contested,' on the one hand, and what remained as yet 'unrivalled' on
the other.
More judiciously Professor Bain alters, "He that tells a lie is not
sensible how great a task he undertakes; for he must be forced to
invent twenty more to maintain one," into "for, to maintain one, he
must invent twenty more," putting the emphatic words in their emphatic
place, at the end.
*18. Where several words are emphatic, make it clear which is the most
emphatic.* Thus, in "The state was made, under the pretence of serving
it, in reality the prize of their contention to each of these opposite
parties," it is unpleasantly doubtful whether the writer means (1)
state or (2) parties to be emphatic.
If (1), "As for the state, these two parties, under the pretence of
serving it, converted it into a prize for their contention." If (2),
write, "Though served in profession, the state was in reality
converted into a prize for their contention by these two parties."
In (1) parties is subordinated, in (2) state.
Sometimes the addition of some intensifying word serves to emphasize.
Thus, instead of "To effect this they used all devices," we can write
"To effect this they used every conceivable device." So, if we want
to emphasize fidelity in "The business will task your skill and
fidelity," we can write "Not only your skill but also your
fidelity." This, however, sometimes leads to exaggerations. See (2).
Sometimes antithesis gives emphasis, as in "You do not know this,
but you shall know it." Where antithesis cannot be used, the
emphasis must be expressed by turning the sentence, as "I will make
you know it," or by some addition, as "You shall hereafter know
it."
*19. Words should be as near as possible to the words with which they
are grammatically connected.* See Paragraphs 20 to 29. For exceptions
see 30.
*20. Adverbs should be placed next to the words they are intended to
affect.* When unemphatic, adverbs come between the subject and the
verb, or, if the tense is compound, between the parts of the compound
tense: "He quickly left the room;" "He has quickly left the room;"
but, when emphatic, after the verb: "He left, or has left, the room
quickly."[10] When such a sentence as the latter is followed by a
present participle, there arises ambiguity. "I told him to go slowly,
but he left the room quickly, dropping the purse on the floor." Does
quickly here modify left or dropping? The remedy[11] is, to give
the adverb its unemphatic place, "He quickly left the room, dropping
&c.," or else to avoid the participle, thus: "He quickly dropped the
purse and left the room," or "He dropped the purse and quickly left
the room."
*21. "Only" requires careful use. The strict[12] rule is, that "only"
should be placed before the word affected by it.*
The following is ambiguous:
"The heavens are not open to the faithful only at intervals."
The best rule is to avoid placing "only" between two emphatic words,
and to avoid using "only" where "alone" can be used instead.
In strictness perhaps the three following sentences:
(1) He only beat three,
(2) He beat only three,
(3) He beat three only, ought to be explained, severally, thus:
(1) He did no more than beat, did not kill, three.
(2) He beat no more than three.
(3) He beat three, and that was all he did. (Here only modifies the
whole of the sentence and depreciates the action.)
But the best authors sometimes transpose the word. "He only lived"
ought to mean "he did not die or make any great sacrifice;" but "He
only lived but till he was a man" (Macbeth, v. 8. 40) means "He
lived only till he was a man." Compare also, "Who only hath
immortality."
Only at the beginning of a statement = but. "I don't like to
importune you, only I know you'll forgive me." Before an imperative
it diminishes the favour asked: "Only listen to me." This use of
only is mostly confined to letters.
Very often, only at the beginning of a sentence is used for alone:
"Only ten came," "Only Caesar approved." Alone is less ambiguous.
The ambiguity of only is illustrated by such a sentence as, "Don't
hesitate to bring a few friends of yours to shoot on my estate at any
time. Only five (fifteen) came yesterday," which might mean, "I
don't mind a few; only don't bring so many as fifteen;" or else
"Don't hesitate to bring a few more; no more than five came
yesterday." In conversation, ambiguity is prevented by emphasis; but
in a letter, only thus used might cause unfortunate mistakes. Write
"Yesterday only five came," if you mean "no more than five."
*22. When "not only" precedes "but also," see that each is followed by
the same part of speech.*
"He not only gave me advice but also help" is wrong. Write "He
gave me, not only advice, but also help." On the other hand, "He
not only gave me a grammar, but also lent me a dictionary," is
right. Take an instance. "He spoke not only forcibly but also
tastefully (adverbs), and this too, not only before a small
audience, but also in (prepositions) a large public meeting, and his
speeches were not only successful, but also (adjective) worthy of
success."
*23. "At least," "always," and other adverbial adjuncts, sometimes
produce ambiguity.*
"I think you will find my Latin exercise, at all events, as good as
my cousin's." Does this mean (1) "my Latin exercise, though not
perhaps my other exercises;" or (2), "Though not very good, yet, at
all events, as good as my cousin's"? Write for (1), "My Latin
exercise, at all events, you will find &c." and for (2), "I think you
will find my Latin exercise as good as my cousin's, at all events."
The remedy is to avoid placing "at all events" between two emphatic
words.
As an example of the misplacing of an adverbial adjunct, take "From
abroad he received most favourable reports, but in the City he heard
that a panic had broken out on the Exchange, and that the funds were
fast falling." This ought to mean that the "hearing," and not (as is
intended) that the "breaking out of the panic," took place in the
City.
In practice, an adverb is often used to qualify a remote word, where
the latter is more emphatic than any nearer word. This is very
common when the Adverbial Adjunct is placed in an emphatic position at
the beginning of the sentence: "On this very spot our guide declared
that Claverhouse had fallen."
*24. Nouns should be placed near the nouns that they define.* In the
very common sentence "The death is announced of Mr. John Smith, an
author whose works &c.," the transposition is probably made from a
feeling that, if we write "The death of Mr. John Smith is announced,"
we shall be obliged to begin a new sentence, "He was an author whose
works &c." But the difficulty can be removed by writing "We regret to
announce, or, we are informed of, the death of Mr. John Smith, an
author, &c."
*25. Pronouns should follow the nouns to which they refer without the
intervention of another noun.* Avoid, "John Smith, the son of Thomas
Smith, who gave me this book," unless Thomas Smith is the
antecedent of who. Avoid also "John supplied Thomas with money: he
(John) was very well off."
When, however, one of two preceding nouns is decidedly superior to the
other in emphasis, the more emphatic may be presumed to be the noun
referred to by the pronoun, even though the noun of inferior emphasis
intervenes. Thus: "At this moment the colonel came up, and took the
place of the wounded general. He gave orders to halt." Here he
would naturally refer to colonel, though general intervenes. A
conjunction will often show that a pronoun refers to the subject of
the preceding sentence, and not to another intervening noun. "The
sentinel at once took aim at the approaching soldier, and fired. He
then retreated to give the alarm."
It is better to adhere, in most cases, to Rule 25, which may be called
(Bain) the Rule of Proximity. The Rule of Emphasis, of which an
instance was given in the last paragraph, is sometimes misleading. A
distinction might be drawn by punctuating thus:
"David the father of Solomon, who slew Goliath." "David, the father of
Solomon who built the Temple." But the propriety of omitting a comma
in each case is questionable, and it is better to write so as not to
be at the mercy of commas.
*26. Clauses that are grammatically connected should be kept as close
together as possible.* (But see 55.) The introduction of parentheses
violating this rule often produced serious ambiguity. Thus, in the
following: "The result of these observations appears to be in
opposition to the view now generally received in this country, that
in muscular effort the substance of the muscle itself undergoes
disintegration." Here it is difficult to tell whether the theory of
"disintegration" is (1) "the result," or, as the absence of a comma
after "be" would indicate, (2) "in opposition to the result of these
observations." If (1) is intended, add "and to prove" after "country;"
if (2), insert "which is" after "country."
There is an excessive complication in the following:—"It cannot, at
all events, if the consideration demanded by a subject of such
importance from any one professing to be a philosopher, be given, be
denied that &c."
Where a speaker feels that his hearers have forgotten the connection
of the beginning of the sentence, he should repeat what he has said;
e.g. after the long parenthesis in the last sentence he should
recommence, "it cannot, I say, be denied." In writing, however, this
licence must be sparingly used.
A short parenthesis, or modifying clause, will not interfere with
clearness, especially if antithesis he used, so as to show the
connection between the different parts of the sentence, e.g. "A
modern newspaper statement, though probably true, would be laughed
at if quoted in a book as testimony; but the letter of a court gossip
is thought good historical evidence if written some centuries ago."
Here, to place "though probably true" at the beginning of the sentence
would not add clearness, and would impair the emphasis of the contrast
between "a modern newspaper statement" and "the letter of a court
gossip."
*27. In conditional sentences, the antecedent clauses must be kept
distinct from the consequent clauses.*—There is ambiguity in "The
lesson intended to be taught by these manoeuvres will be lost, if the
plan of operations is laid down too definitely beforehand, and the
affair degenerates into a mere review." Begin, in any case, with the
antecedent, "If the plan," &c. Next write, according to the meaning:
(1) "If the plan is laid down, and the affair degenerates &c., then
the lesson will be lost;" or (2) " … then the lesson … will be
lost, and the affair degenerates into a mere review."
*28. Dependent clauses preceded by "that" should be kept distinct from
those that are independent.*
Take as an example:
(1) "He replied that he wished to help them, and intended to make
preparations accordingly."
This ought not to be used (though it sometimes is, for shortness) to
mean:
(2) "He replied …, and he intended."
In (1), "intended," having no subject, must be supposed to be
connected with the nearest preceding verb, in the same mood and tense,
that has a subject, i.e. "wished." It follows that (1) is a
condensation of:
(3) "He replied that he wished …, and that he intended."
(2), though theoretically free from ambiguity, is practically
ambiguous, owing to a loose habit of repeating the subject
unnecessarily. It would be better to insert a conjunctional word or a
full stop between the two statements. Thus:
(4) "He replied that he wished to help them, and indeed he
intended," &c., or "He replied, &c. He intended, &c."
Where there is any danger of ambiguity, use (3) or (4) in preference
to (1) or (2).
*29. When there are several infinitives, those that are dependent on
the same word must be kept distinct from those that are not.*
"He said that he wished to take his friend with him to visit the
capital and to study medicine." Here it is doubtful whether the
meaning is—
"He said that he wished to take his friend with him,
(1) and also to visit the capital and study medicine," or
(2) "that his friend might visit the capital and might also study
medicine," or
(3) "on a visit to the capital, and that he also wished to study
medicine."
From the three different versions it will be perceived that this
ambiguity must be met (a) by using "that" for "to," which allows us
to repeat an auxiliary verb [e.g. "might" in (2)], and (b) by
inserting conjunctions. As to insertions of conjunctions, see (37).
"In order to," and "for the purpose of," can be used to distinguish
(wherever there is any ambiguity) between an infinitive that
expresses a purpose, and an infinitive that does not, e.g. "He
told his servant to call upon his friend, to (in order to) give him
information about the trains, and not to leave him till he started."
*30. The principle of suspense.* Write your sentence in such a way
that, until he has come to the full stop, the reader may feel the
sentence to be incomplete. In other words, keep your reader in
suspense. Suspense is caused (1) by placing the "if-clause" first,
and not last, in a conditional sentence; (2) by placing participles
before the words they qualify; (3) by using suspensive conjunctions,
e.g. not only, either, partly, on the one hand, in the
first place, &c.
The following is an example of an unsuspended sentence. The sense
draggles, and it is difficult to keep up one's attention.
"Mr. Pym was looked upon as the man of greatest experience in
parliaments, | where he had served very long, | and was always a man
of business, | being an officer in the Exchequer, | and of a good
reputation generally, | though known to be inclined to the Puritan
party; yet not of those furious resolutions (Mod. Eng. so furiously
resolved) against the Church as the other leading men were, | and
wholly devoted to the Earl of Bedford,—who had nothing of that
spirit."
The foregoing sentence might have ended at any one of the eight points
marked above. When suspended it becomes:—
"Mr. Pym, owing to his long service in Parliament in the Exchequer,
was esteemed above all others for his Parliamentary experience and for
his knowledge of business. He had also a good reputation generally;
for, though openly favouring the Puritan party, he was closely devoted
to the Earl of Bedford, and, like the Earl, had none of the fanatical
spirit manifested against the Church by the other leading men."
*30 a. It is a violation of the principle of Suspense to introduce
unexpectedly, at the end of a long sentence, some short and unemphatic
clause beginning with (a) " … not" or (b) " … which."*
(a) "This reform has already been highly beneficial to all classes
of our countrymen, and will, I am persuaded, encourage among us
industry, self-dependence, and frugality, and not, as some say,
wastefulness."
Write "not, as some say, wastefulness, but industry, self-dependence,
and frugality."
(b) "After a long and tedious journey, the last part of which was a
little dangerous owing to the state of the roads, we arrived safely at
York, which is a fine old town."
*Exception.*—When the short final clause is intended to be
unexpectedly unemphatic, it comes in appropriately, with something of
the sting of an epigram. See (42). Thus:
"The old miser said that he should have been delighted to give the
poor fellow a shilling, but most unfortunately he had left his purse
at home—a habit of his."
Suspense naturally throws increased emphasis on the words for which we
are waiting, i.e. on the end of the sentence. It has been pointed
out above that *a monotony of final emphasis is objectionable,
especially in letter writing and conversation*.
*31. Suspense must not be excessive.* Excess of suspense is a common
fault in boys translating from Latin. "Themistocles, having secured
the safety of Greece, the Persian fleet being now destroyed, when he
had unsuccessfully attempted to persuade the Greeks to break down the
bridge across the Hellespont, hearing that Xerxes was in full flight,
and thinking that it might be profitable to secure the friendship of
the king, wrote as follows to him." The more English idiom is: "When
Themistocles had secured the safety of Greece by the destruction of
the Persian fleet, he made an unsuccessful attempt to persuade the
Greeks to break down the bridge across the Hellespont. Soon
afterwards, hearing &c."
A long suspense that would be intolerable in prose is tolerable in the
introduction to a poem. See the long interval at the beginning of
Paradise Lost between "Of man's first disobedience" and "Sing,
heavenly Muse." Compare also the beginning of Paradise Lost, Book
II.:
"High on a throne of royal state, which far
Outshone the wealth of Ormuz and of Ind,
Or where the gorgeous East with richest hand
Showers on her kings barbaric pearl and gold—
Satan exalted sat."
with the opening of Keats' Hyperion:
"Deep in the shady sadness of a vale,
Far sunken from the healthy breath of morn,
Far from the fiery noon and eve's one star—
Sat grey-haired Saturn, quiet as a stone."
*32. In a long conditional sentence put the "if-clause," antecedent,
or protasis, first.*
Everyone will see the flatness of "Revenge thy father's most unnatural
murder, if thou didst ever love him," as compared with the suspense
that forces an expression of agony from Hamlet in—
"Ghost. If thou didst ever thy dear father love—
Hamlet. O, God!
Ghost. Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder."
The effect is sometimes almost ludicrous when the consequent is long
and complicated, and when it precedes the antecedent or "if-clause."
"I should be delighted to introduce you to my friends, and to show you
the objects of interest in our city, and the beautiful scenery in the
neighbourhood, if you were here." Where the "if-clause" comes last, it
ought to be very emphatic: "if you were only here."
The introduction of a clause with "if" or "though" in the middle of a
sentence may often cause ambiguity, especially when a great part of
the sentence depends on "that:" "His enemies answered that, for the
sake of preserving the public peace, they would keep quiet for the
present, though he declared that cowardice was the motive of the
delay, and that for this reason they would put off the trial to a more
convenient season." See (27).
*33. Suspense[13] is gained by placing a Participle or Adjective that
qualifies the Subject, before the Subject.*
"Deserted by his friends, he was forced to have recourse to those
that had been his enemies." Here, if we write, "He, deserted by his
friends, was forced &c.," he is unduly emphasized; and if we write,
"He was forced to have recourse to his enemies, having been deserted
by his friends," the effect is very flat.
Of course we might sometimes write "He was deserted and forced &c."
But this cannot be done where the "desertion" is to be not stated but
implied.
Often, when a participle qualifying the subject is introduced late in
the sentence, it causes positive ambiguity: "With this small force the
general determined to attack the foe, flushed with recent victory
and rendered negligent by success."
An excessive use of the suspensive participle is French and
objectionable: e.g. "Careless by nature, and too much engaged
with business to think of the morrow, spoiled by a long-established
liberty and a fabulous prosperity, having for many generations
forgotten the scourge of war, we allow ourselves to drift on without
taking heed of the signs of the times." The remedy is to convert the
participle into a verb depending on a conjunction: "Because we are by
nature careless, &c.;" or to convert the participle into a verb
co-ordinate with the principal verb, e.g. "We are by nature
careless, &c., and therefore we allow ourselves, &c."
*34. Suspensive Conjunctions, e.g. "either," "not only," "on the one
hand," add clearness.*—Take the following sentence:—"You must take
this extremely perilous course, in which success is uncertain, and
failure disgraceful, as well as ruinous, or else the liberty of your
country is endangered." Here, the meaning is liable to be
misunderstood, till the reader has gone half through the sentence.
Write "Either you must," &c., and the reader is, from the first,
prepared for an alternative. Other suspensive conjunctions or phrases
are partly, for our part; in the first place; it is true;
doubtless; of course; though; on the one hand.
*35. Repeat the Subject when the omission would cause ambiguity or
obscurity.*—The omission is particularly likely to cause obscurity
after a Relative standing as Subject:—
"He professes to be helping the nation, which in reality is suffering
from his flattery, and (he? or it?) will not permit anyone else to
give it advice."
The Relative should be repeated when it is the Subject of several
Verbs. "All the pleasing illusions which made power gentle and
obedience liberal, which harmonized the different shades of life,
and which, by a bland assimilation, incorporated into politics the
sentiments that beautify and soften private society, are to be
dissolved by this new conquering empire of light and reason."
*36. Repeat a Preposition after an intervening Conjunction, especially
if a Verb and an Object also intervene.*
"He forgets the gratitude that he owes to those that helped all his
companions when he was poor and uninfluential, and (to) John Smith
in particular." Here, omit to, and the meaning may be "that helped
all his companions, and John Smith in particular." The intervention of
the verb and object, "helped" and "companions," causes this ambiguity.
*37. When there are several Verbs at some distance from a Conjunction
on which they depend, repeat the Conjunction.*[14]
"When we look back upon the havoc that two hundred years have made in
the ranks of our national authors—and, above all, (when) we refer
their rapid disappearance to the quick succession of new
competitors—we cannot help being dismayed at the prospect that lies
before the writers of the present day."
Here omit "when," and we at once substitute a parenthetical statement
for what is really a subordinate clause.
In reporting a speech or opinion, "that" must be continually repeated,
to avoid the danger of confusing what the writer says with what others
say.
"We might say that the Caesars did not persecute the Christians;
(that) they only punished men who were charged, rightly or wrongly,
with burning Rome, and committing the foulest abominations in secret
assemblies; and (that) the refusal to throw frankincense on the
altar of Jupiter was not the crime, but only evidence of the crime."
But see (6 b).
*37 a. Repeat Verbs after the conjunctions "than," "as," &c.*
"I think he likes me better than you;" i.e. either "than you like
me," or "he likes you."
"Cardinal Richelieu hated Buckingham as sincerely as did the
Spaniard Olivares." Omit "did," and you cause ambiguity.
*38. If the sentence is so long that it is difficult to keep the
thread of meaning unbroken, repeat the subject, or some other emphatic
word, or a summary of what has been said.*
"Gold and cotton, banks and railways, crowded ports, and populous
cities—these are not the elements that constitute a great nation."
This repetition (though useful and, when used in moderation, not
unpleasant) is more common with speakers than with writers, and with
slovenly speakers than with good speakers.
"The country is in such a condition, that if we delay longer some fair
measure of reform, sufficient at least to satisfy the more moderate,
and much more, if we refuse all reform whatsoever—I say, if we adopt
so unwise a policy, the country is in such a condition that we may
precipitate a revolution."
Where the relative is either implied (in a participle) or repeated,
the antecedent must often be repeated also. In the following sentence
we have the Subject repeated not only in the final summary, but also
as the antecedent:—
"But if there were, in any part of the world, a national church
regarded as heretical by four-fifths of the nation committed to its
care; a church established and maintained by the sword; a church
producing twice as many riots as conversions; a church which, though
possessing great wealth and power, and though long backed by
persecuting laws, had, in the course of many generations, been found
unable to propagate its doctrines, and barely able to maintain its
ground; a church so odious that fraud and violence, when used
against its clear rights of property, were generally regarded as fair
play; a church whose ministers were preaching to desolate walls, and
with difficulty obtaining their lawful subsistence by the help of
bayonets,—such a church, on our principles, could not, we must own,
be defended."
*39. It is a help to clearness, when the first part of the sentence
prepares the way for the middle and the middle for the end, in a kind
of ascent. This ascent is called "climax."*
In the following there are two climaxes, each of which has three
terms:—
"To gossip(a) is a fault(b); to libel(a'), a crime(b'); to
slander(a''), a sin(b'')."
In the following, there are several climaxes, and note how they
contribute to the clearness of a long sentence:—
"Man, working, has contrived(a) the Atlantic Cable, but I declare
that it astonishes(b) me far more to think that for his mere
amusement(c), that to entertain a mere idle hour(c'), he has
created(a') 'Othello' and 'Lear,' and I am more than astonished, I
am awe-struck(b'), at that inexplicable elasticity of his nature
which enables him, instead of turning away(d) from calamity and
grief(e), or instead of merely defying(d') them, actually to make
them the material of his amusement(d''), and to draw from the
wildest agonies of the human spirit(e') a pleasure which is not
only not cruel(f), but is in the highest degree pure and
ennobling(f')."
The neglect of climax produces an abruptness that interferes with the
even flow of thought. Thus, if Pope, in his ironical address to
mankind, had written—
"Go, wondrous creature, mount where science guides;
Go, measure earth, weigh air, and state the tides;
Go, teach Eternal Wisdom how to rule"—
the ascent would have been too rapid. The transition from earth to
heaven, and from investigating to governing, is prepared by the
intervening climax—
"Instruct the planets in what orbs to run;
Correct old Time, and regulate the Sun;
Go, soar with Plato to th' empyreal sphere,
To the first good, first perfect, and first fair."
*40. When the thought is expected to ascend and yet descends,
feebleness and sometimes confusion is the result. The descent is
called "bathos."*
"What pen can describe the tears, the lamentations, the agonies, the
animated remonstrances of the unfortunate prisoners?"
"She was a woman of many accomplishments and virtues, graceful in her
movements, winning in her address, a kind friend, a faithful and
loving wife, a most affectionate mother, and she played beautifully
on the pianoforte."
INTENTIONAL BATHOS has a humorous incongruity and abruptness that is
sometimes forcible. For example, after the climax ending with the
line—
"Go, teach Eternal Wisdom how to rule,"
Pope adds—
"Then drop into thyself, and be a fool."
*40 a. A new construction should not be introduced without cause.*—A
sudden and apparently unnecessary change of construction causes
awkwardness and roughness at least, and sometimes breaks the flow of
the sentence so seriously as to cause perplexity. Thus, write
"virtuous and accomplished," or "of many virtues and accomplishments,"
not "of many virtues and accomplished;" "riding or walking" or "on
foot or horseback," not "on foot or riding." In the same way, do not
put adjectives and participles, active and passive forms of verbs, in
too close juxtaposition. Avoid such sentences as the following:—
"He had good reason to believe that the delay was not an accident
(accidental) but premeditated, and for supposing (to suppose, or
else, for believing, above) that the fort, though strong both by art
and naturally (nature), would be forced by the treachery of the
governor and the indolent (indolence of the) general to capitulate
within a week."
"They accused him of being bribed (receiving bribes from) by the
king and unwilling (neglecting) to take the city."
*41. Antithesis adds force, and often clearness.*—The meaning of
liberal in the following sentence is ascertained by the
antithesis:—
"All the pleasing illusions which made power(a) gentle(b) and
obedience(a') liberal(b') … are now to be destroyed."
There is a kind of proportion. As gentleness is to power, so
liberality (in the sense here used) is to obedience. Now
gentleness is the check on the excess of power; therefore liberal
here applies to that which checks the excess of obedience, i.e.
checks servility. Hence liberal here means "free."
The contrast also adds force. "They aimed at the rule(a), not at the
destruction(a'), of their country. They were men of great civil(b)
and great military(b') talents, and, if the terror(c), the
ornament(c') of their age."
Excessive antithesis is unnatural and wearisome:—
"Who can persuade where treason(a) is above reason(a'), and
might(b) ruleth right(b'), and it is had for lawful(c)
whatsoever is lustful(c'), and commotioners(d) are better than
commissioners(d'), and common woe(e) is named common
wealth(e')?"
*42. Epigram.*—It has been seen that the neglect of climax results in
lameness. Sometimes the suddenness of the descent produces amusement:
and when the descent is intentional and very sudden, the effect is
striking as well as amusing. Thus:—
(1) "You are not only not vicious, you are virtuous," is a climax.
(2) "You are not vicious, you are vice," is not climax, nor is it
bathos: it is epigram.[15]
Epigram may be defined as a "short sentence expressing truth under an
amusing appearance of incongruity." It is often antithetical.
"The Russian grandees came to { and diamonds," climax.
court dropping pearls { and vermin," epigram.
"These two nations were divided { and the bitter remembrance
by mutual fear { of recent losses," climax.
{ and mountains," epigram.
There is a sort of implied antithesis in:—
"He is full of information—(but flat also) like yesterday's Times."
"Verbosity is cured (not by a small, but) by a large vocabulary."
The name of epigram may sometimes be given to a mere antithesis;
e.g. "An educated man should know something of everything, and
everything of something."
*43. Let each sentence have one, and only one, principal subject of
thought.*
"This great and good man died on the 17th of September, 1683, leaving
behind him the memory of many noble actions, and a numerous family, of
whom three were sons; one of them, George, the eldest, heir to his
father's virtues, as well as to his principal estates in Cumberland,
where most of his father's property was situate, and shortly
afterwards elected member for the county, which had for several
generations returned this family to serve in Parliament." Here we have
(1) the "great and good man," (2) "George," (3) "the county,"
disputing which is to be considered the principal subject. Two, if not
three sentences should have been made, instead of one. Carefully avoid
a long sentence like this, treating of many different subjects on one
level. It is called heterogeneous.
*44. The connection between different sentences must be kept up by
Adverbs used as Conjunctions, or by means of some other connecting
words at the beginning of each sentence.*—Leave out the conjunctions
and other connecting words, and it will be seen that the following
sentences lose much of their meaning:—
"Pitt was in the army for a few months in time of peace. His
biographer (accordingly) insists on our confessing, that, if the
young cornet had remained in the service, he would have been one of
the ablest commanders that ever lived. (But) this is not all. Pitt
(, it seems,) was not merely a great poet in esse and a great
general in posse, but a finished example of moral excellence….
(The truth is, that) there scarcely ever lived a person who had so
little claim to this sort of praise as Pitt. He was (undoubtedly) a
great man. (But) his was not a complete and well-proportioned
greatness. The public life of Hampden or of Somers resembles a regular
drama which can be criticised as a whole, and every scene of which is
to be viewed in connection with the main action. The public life of
Pitt (, on the other hand,) is," &c.
The following are some of the most common connecting adverbs, or
connecting phrases: (1) expressing consequence, similarity,
repetition, or resumption of a subject—accordingly, therefore,
then, naturally, so that, thus, in this way, again, once
more, to resume, to continue, to sum up, in fact, upon
this; (2) expressing opposition—nevertheless, in spite of this,
yet, still, however, but, on the contrary, on the other
hand; (3) expressing suspension—undoubtedly … but; indeed …
yet; on the one hand … on the other; partly … partly; some
… others.
Avoid a style like that of Bishop Burnet, which strings together a
number of sentences with "and" or "so," or with no conjunction at all:
"Blake with the fleet happened to be at Malaga, before he made war
upon Spain; and some of his seamen went ashore, and met the Host
carried about; and not only paid no respect to it, but laughed at
those who did." Write "When Blake &c."
*45. The connection between two long sentences sometimes requires a
short intervening sentence, showing the transition of thought.*
"Without force or opposition, it (chivalry) subdued the fierceness of
pride and power; it obliged sovereigns to submit to the soft
collar[16] of social esteem, compelled stern authority to submit to
elegance, and gave a dominating vanquisher of laws to be subdued by
manners. But now (all is to be changed:) all the pleasing illusions
which made power gentle and obedience liberal, which harmonized the
different shades of life, and which, by a bland assimilation,
incorporated into politics the sentiments that beautify and soften
private society, are to be dissolved by this new conquering empire of
light and reason." If the words italicized were omitted, the
transition would be too abrupt: the conjunction but alone would be
insufficient.
[5] For, at the beginning of a sentence, sometimes causes temporary
doubt, while the reader is finding out whether it is used as a
conjunction or preposition.
[6] It should refer (1) either to the Noun immediately preceding, or
(2) to some Noun superior to all intervening Nouns in emphasis. See
(25).
[7] So useful that, on mature consideration, I am disposed to adopt
"that" here and in several of the following exceptional cases.
[8] Of course "and which" may be used where "which" precedes.
[9] "That which," where that is an object, e.g. "then (set
forth) that which is worse," St. John ii. 10, is rare in modern
English.
[10] Sometimes the emphatic Adverb comes at the beginning, and causes
the transposition of an Auxiliary Verb, "Gladly do I consent."
[11] Of course punctuation will remove the ambiguity; but it is better
to express oneself clearly, as far as possible, independently of
punctuation.
[12] Professor Bain.
[13] See (30).
[14] The repetition of Auxiliary Verbs and Pronominal Adjectives is
also conducive to clearness.
[15] Professor Bain says: "In the epigram the mind is roused by a
conflict or contradiction between the form of the language and the
meaning really conveyed."
[16] This metaphor is not recommended for imitation.
* * * * *
*46. Metaphor is briefer than literal statement.* See (13).
"The cares and responsibilities of a sovereign often disturb his
sleep," is not so brief as "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown,"
where the effect of care on the mind is assimilated to the effect of a
heavy crown pressing on the head.
*47. General terms are briefer, though less forcible, than particular
terms.* Thus: "He devours literature, no matter of what kind," is
shorter than, "Novels or sermons, poems or histories, no matter what,
he devours them all."
*47 a. A phrase may be expressed by a word.*
"These impressions can never be forgotten, i.e. are indelible."
"The style of this book is of such a nature that it cannot be
understood, i.e. unintelligible."
The words "of such a nature that" are often unnecessarily inserted.
See the extract from Sir Archibald Alison.
*48. Participles can often be used as brief (though sometimes
ambiguous) equivalents of phrases containing Conjunctions and Verbs.*
"Hearing (when he heard) this, he advanced." See (7) for more
instances. So "phrases containing conjunctions" means "phrases that
contain conjunctions." "This done, (for, when this was done) he
retired."
Sometimes the participle "being" is omitted. "France at our doors, he
sees no danger nigh," for "France being" or "though France is."
*49. Participles and participial adjectives may be used like
Adjectives, as equivalents for phrases containing the Relative.*
"The never-ceasing wind," "the clamouring ocean," "the drenching
rain," are instances. The licence of inventing participial adjectives
by adding -ing to a noun, is almost restricted to poetry. You could
not write "the crannying wind" in prose.
*50. A statement may sometimes be briefly implied instead of being
expressed at length.* Thus, instead of "The spirit of Christianity was
humanizing, and therefore &c.," or "Christianity, since it was (or
being) of a humanizing spirit, discouraged &c.," we can write more
briefly and effectively, "Gladiatorial shows were first discouraged,
and finally put down, by the humanizing spirit of Christianity." So
instead of "The nature of youth is thoughtless and sanguine, and
therefore &c.," we can write, "The danger of the voyage was
depreciated and the beauty of the island exaggerated by the
thoughtless nature of youth."
Sometimes a mere name or epithet implies a statement. "It was in vain
that he offered the Swiss terms: war was deliberately preferred by the
hardy mountaineers," i.e. "by the Swiss, because they were
mountaineers and hardy." "The deed was applauded by all honest men,
but the Government affected to treat it as murder, and set a price
upon the head of (him whom they called) the assassin." "The conqueror
of Austerlitz might be expected to hold different language from the
prisoner of St. Helena," i.e. "Napoleon when elated by the victory
of Austerlitz," and "Napoleon when depressed by his imprisonment at
St. Helena."
CAUTION.—Different names must not be used for the same person unless
each of them derives an appropriateness from its context. Thus, if we
are writing about Charles II., it would be in very bad taste to avoid
repeating "he" by using such periphrases as the following: "The third
of the Stewarts hated business," "the Merry Monarch died in the
fifty-fourth year of his age," &c.
*51. Conjunctions may be omitted.* The omission gives a certain
forcible abruptness, e.g. "You say this: I (on the other hand) deny
it."
When sentences are short, as in Macaulay's writings, conjunctions may
be advantageously omitted.
Where a contrast is intended, the conjunction but usually prepares
the way for the second of the two contrasted terms: "He is good but
dull." Where and is used instead of but, the incongruity savours
of epigram: "He always talks truthfully and prosily." "He is always
amusing and false."
*51 a. The Imperative Mood may be used for "if."*
"Strip (for, if you strip) Virtue of the awful authority she
derives from the general reverence of mankind, and you rob her of half
her majesty."
*52. Apposition may be used so as to convert two sentences into one.*
"We called at the house of a person to whom we had letters of
introduction, a musician, and, what is more, a good friend to all
young students of music." This is as clear as, and briefer than, "He
was a musician, &c."
*53. Condensation may be effected by not repeating (1) the common
subject of several verbs, (2) the common object of several verbs or
prepositions.*
(1) "He resided here for many years, and, after he had won the esteem
of all the citizens, (he) died," &c. So, (2) "He came to, and was
induced to reside in, this city," is shorter than "He came to this
city, and was induced to reside in it."
Such condensation often causes obscurity, and, even where there is no
obscurity, there is a certain harshness in pausing on light,
unemphatic words, such as to, in, &c., as in the first example.
*54. Tautology.*—The fault of repeating the same word several times
unnecessarily is called tautology, e.g.:
"This is a painful circumstance; it is a circumstance that I much
regret, and he also will much regret the circumstance." But the
fault is not to be avoided by using different words to mean the same
thing, as, "This is a painful event; it is a circumstance that I
much regret, and he also will greatly lament the occurrence."
The true remedy is to arrange the words in such a manner that there
may be no unnecessary repetition, thus: "This is a painful
circumstance, a circumstance that causes me, and will cause him, deep
regret."
The repetition of the same meaning in slightly different words is a
worse fault than the repetition of the same word. See, for examples,
the extract from Sir Archibald Alison, at the end of the book. Thus
"A burning thirst for conquests is a characteristic of this nation.
It is an ardent passion that &c." Other instances are—"The
universal opinion of all men;" "His judgment is so infallible
that it is never deceived," &c.
*55. Parenthesis may be used with advantage to brevity.*
"We are all (and who would not be?) offended at the treatment we have
received," is shorter and more forcible than the sentence would have
been if the parenthesis had been appended in a separate sentence:
"Who, indeed, would not be offended?"
Extreme care must, however, be taken that a parenthesis may not
obscure the meaning of a long sentence.
*56. Caution: let clearness be the first consideration.* It is best,
at all events for beginners, not to aim so much at being brief, or
forcible, as at being perfectly clear. Horace says, "While I take
pains to be brief, I fall into obscurity," and it may easily be seen
that several of the rules for brevity interfere with the rules for
clearness.
Forcible style springs from (1) vividness and (2) exactness of
thought, and from a corresponding (1) vividness and (2) exactness in
the use of words.
(1) When you are describing anything, endeavour to see it and
describe it as you see it. If you are writing about a man who was
killed, see the man before you, and ask, was he executed, cut
down, run through the body, butchered, shot, or hanged? If
you are writing about the capture of a city, was the city stormed,
surprised, surrendered, starved out, or demolished before
surrender? Was an army repelled, defeated, routed, crushed,
or annihilated?
(2) Exactness in the use of words requires an exact knowledge of their
meanings and differences. This is a study by itself, and cannot be
discussed here.[17]
[17] See English Lessons for English People, pp. 1-53.