writer may well beware of such constructions, in which he may even chance to lose his own way. He will do best to rely upon separate sentences of moderate length, each of which he is sure he can handle. Then, for cumulative power, let these be made to follow each other toward one conclusion, like rank after rank of a charging army.

Perhaps the supreme master of the long, cumulative periodic sentence, in the English language, is Edmund Burke. A fine example of unity with clearness maintained throughout such a sentence appears in his "Conciliation with America:"

"Such is steadfastly my opinion of the absolute necessity of keeping up the concord of the empire by a unity of spirit through a diversity of operations [here the mind can easily wait for the conclusion to tell what the 'such' means], that if I were sure the colonists had, on leaving this country, sealed a regular compact of servitude; that they had solemnly abjured all the rights of citizens; that they had made a vow to renounce all ideas of liberty for them and their posterity to all generations [here we are brought to a crowning point of expectancy, with the question rushing upon the mind. 'If all this, what then?' and the swift answer comes to the mind eagerly waiting for it], YET I should hold myself obliged to conform to the temper I found universally prevalent in my own day [not yet fully telling, but foreshadowing the conclusion, of which the waiting mind catches a premonition], and to govern two millions of men, impatient of servitude, ON THE PRINCIPLES OF FREEDOM."

To that exalted "freedom" the whole sentence has been leading up. Precedents, practises, or statutes of compulsion amount to nothing. He has devised a case stronger than the advocates of tyranny could have imagined, of accepted and stipulated colonial servitude, and swept it aside with that defiant "yet", and so

moved on to the grandest and strongest concluding word, leaving last in the thought of every hearer or reader, to abide when all else has been said, lofty, enduring, triumphant, "the principles of freedom."

CHAPTER XV

CLEARNESS OF STYLE—IV

BY ITEMS OF CONSTRUCTION

Various parts of speech deserve attention by and for themselves as related to perspicuity.

I. NOUNS

Nouns are the great basal blocks of which sentences and paragraphs are built. Of them it is perhaps enough to say that nouns should be used directly and squarely for what they mean. The homely and familiar rule to "call a spade a spade" is never outgrown nor outworn. It may at some time be convenient, in order to avoid repetition, to call the "spade" a "tool" or an "implement," but never so as to disguise the fact that it is a "spade." If the phrase "a garden implement" is so used as to leave the hearer or reader to guess whether a hoe, shovel, rake, trowel, or a simple "spade" is meant, then such ambiguous phrase is inimical to perspicuity. Thus Blair says of Lord Shaftesbury:

"If he has occasion to mention any person or author, he very rarely mentions him by his proper name. He descants for two or three pages together upon Aristotle, without once naming him in any other way than ‘the Master Critic,' the 'Mighty Genius and Judge of Art,' the 'Prince of Critics,' the ‘Grand Master of Art,' and the 'Consummate Philologist.''

So, Ruskin remarks that, during the famine in Ireland, certain clergymen of the Church of England preached upon the sufferings of the Irish people, but it

would never do to mention the "potato," much less the "potato rot;" so they spoke of the famine as caused by "the failure of that esculent, on which it has pleased Divine Providence that the sustenance of a large part of the human race should depend."

The choice of a noun for a certain purpose is often a matter of elegance, delicacy, fitness, or force, but always first and foremost of clearness. The question what noun to use may involve a skilful balancing of synonyms. In some description, for instance, the "grass," the "sod," or the "turf" may be equally clear and the choice among these words may depend upon the special turn of thought, the connection with other words, or, as in poetry, the harmony or melody of the passage; but whether we shall say the "field," the "lawn," or the "roadside," depends absolutely on the scene we are depicting, and no one of these latter words can be interchanged with either of the others. That the noun shall carry the exact meaning to be expressed is the demand of perspicuity; the choice among those that are equally clear is to be made for other reasons.

II. PRONOUNS

Pronouns for careless writers are a very special snare. He, him, his, may refer to any male being whatever; she, her, hers, to any female; it and its, to any inanimate object or abstract noun, to a little child, or even to an entire clause or sentence. Hence, if there are in a sentence two or more nouns of the same gender, the reference of the pronoun may become very confusing. Thus in "Lisias promised his father never to abandon his friends," makes us ask, Whose friends? His own or his father's? "Mrs. Jones said to her daughter that perhaps she might go to the city for the zephyr she

needed to finish the cushion for her sister's Christmas present." We ask: Who "might go to the city?" Who needed the "zephyr?" Whose "sister" was to have the "present?" If a personal reminiscence may be allowed, the author might mention that he read the sentence above given to a very intelligent lady, who instantly answered, "That's perfectly clear; there's no trouble about that." To the questions, "Who might go to the city? Who needed the zephyr? etc.," she replied, "Why, she." To the further question, "Which she?" the answer was, "Why, the one who is speaking." Thus it would appear that feminine intuition has a capacity of understanding such enigmatic utterances, to which the merely critical intellect cannot attain. But it may be a question whether misunderstandings, and even doubts of veracity, may not sometimes arise in the reporting of such conversations, where syntax is so shadowy a guide to sense. Dr. Blair quotes from Archbishop Tillotson the following almost hopeless sentence:

"Men look with an evil eye upon the good that is in others; and think that their reputation obscures them, and their commendable qualities stand in their light; and therefore they do what they can to cast a cloud over them, that the bright shining of their virtues may not obscure them."

This can scarcely be made clear to oneself, even by rereading, and it was uttered in a sermon, where no rereading was possible. To avoid such confusion, there are four expedients:

1. Change the number of one of the antecedents. Then the reference of the singular and of the plural pronoun will become perfectly clear. Thus, in the sentence just quoted, substitute "another" for "others, when the sentence will read: