Note 73 — SENTENCES.

The Connective parts of Sentences are of all others the most important, and require the most care and attention: for it is by these chiefly that the train of thought, the course of reasoning, and the whole progress of the mind in continued discourse of all kinds, is laid open; and on the right use of these the perspicuity, that is, the first and greatest beauty, of style principally depends. Relatives and Conjunctions are the instruments of Connection in discourse: it may be of use to point out some of the most common inaccuracies, that writers are apt to fall into with respect to them; and a few examples of faults may perhaps be more instructive, than any rules of propriety that can be given. Here therefore shall be added some further examples of inaccuracies in the use of Relatives.

The Relative placed before the Antecedent: Example; “The bodies, which we daily handle, make us perceive, that whilst they remain between them, they do by an insurmountable force hinder the approach of our hands that press them.” Locke, Essay, B. 2. C. 4. §. 1. Here the sense is suspended, and the sentence is unintelligible, till you get to the end of it: there is no Antecedent, to which the Relative them can be referred, but bodies; but, “whilst the bodies remain between the bodies,” makes no sense at all. When you get to hands, the difficulty is cleared up, the sense helping out the Construction: yet there still remains an ambiguity in the Relatives they, them, which in number and gender are equally applicable to bodies or hands; this, tho’ it may not here be the occasion of much obscurity, which is commonly the effect of it, yet is always disagreeable and inelegant: as in the following examples.

“Men look with an evil eye upon the good that is in others; and think, that their reputation obscures them; and that their commendable qualities do 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.” Tillotson, Vol. I. Serm. 42.

“The Earl of Falmouth and Mr. Coventry were rivals who should have most influence with the Duke, who loved the Earl best, but thought the other the wiser man, who supported Pen, who disobliged all the Courtiers, even against the Earl, who contemned Pen as a fellow of no sense.” Clarendon, Cont. p. 264.

But the following Sentence cannot possibly be understood without a careful recollection of circumstances through some pages preceding.

“All which, with the King’s and Queen’s so ample promises to him [the Treasurer] so few hours before the conferring the place on another, and the Duke of York’s manner of receiving him [the Treasurer,] after he [the Chancellor] had been shut up with him [the Duke,] as he [the Treasurer] was informed, might very well excuse him [the Treasurer] for thinking he [the Chancellor] had some share in the affront he [the Treasurer] had undergone.” Clarendon, Cont. p. 296.

“Breaking a Constitution by the very same errors, that so many have been broke before.” Swift, Contests and Dissensions, &c. Chap. 5. Here the Relative is employed not only to represent the Antecedent Noun the errors, but likewise the Preposition by prefixed to it. It ought to be, “the same errors, by which so many have been broken before.”

Again: “⸺An Undertaking; which, although it has failed, (partly &c, and partly &c,) is no objection at all to an Enterprize so well concerted, and with such fair probability of success.” Swift, Conduct of the Allies. That is, “Which Undertaking is no objection to an Enterprize so well concerted;” that is, “to itself:” he means, “the failing of which is no objection at all to it.”