Chapter II: Brevity (1)

46. Metaphor is briefer than literal statement.

47. General terms are briefer, though less forcible, than particular terms.

47 _a_. A phrase may sometimes be expressed by a word.

48. Participles may often be used as brief (though sometimes ambiguous) equivalents of phrases containing Conjunctions and Verbs.

49. Participles, Adjectives, Participial Adjectives, and Nouns may be used as equivalents for phrases containing the Relative.

50. A statement may sometimes be briefly implied instead of being expressed at length.

51. Conjunctions may be omitted. Adverbs, _e.g._ "very," "so." Exaggerated epithets, _e.g._ "incalculable," "unprecedented."

51 _a_. The imperative may be used for "if &c."

52. Apposition may be used, so as to convert two sentences into one.

53. Condensation may be effected by not repeating (1) the common Subject of several Verbs; (2) the common Object of several Verbs or Prepositions.

54. Tautology. Repeating what may be implied.

55. Parenthesis maybe used with advantage to brevity. See 26.

56. Brevity often clashes with clearness. Let clearness be the first consideration.

CLEARNESS AND FORCE.

_Numbers in brackets refer to the Rules._

WORDS.

*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.

ORDER OF WORDS IN A SENTENCE.

*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."