'ONLY.' 'NOT ONLY.'

185

expressed of any other persons.* It has already been seen (page 67) that 'only' preceding a sentence or clause has the force of an adversative conjunction: I should be ashamed to offer at saying any of those civil things in return to your obliging compliments in regard to my translation of Homer, only (but, yet, still) I have too great a value for you not to be pleased with them.'-Pope.

he lived for their sakes alone,' that is not for the sake

9. Errors frequently arise in the use of 'not-only,' to understand which we must attend to the force of the whole expression. He did not pretend to extirpate French music, but only to cultivate and civilize it.' Here the 'not' is obviously misplaced. He pretended, or professed, not to extirpate.'

10. There is still greater complication when we have not only' followed by 'but,' or 'but also.' We may illustrate the construction of these as follows:-Suppose it is said, (1) He gave them food and clothing.' This means simply that he gave those two things. (2) 'He gave them both food and clothing; that is, it would have been liberal to give either, but he gave both. (3) He gave not only food, but also clothing:' food he might have been expected to give, but besides that, he gave, what was hardly to be expected, clothing. The 'but' has its usual power of causing a surprise; the 'not only' gives the ordinary course of things; the 'but' marks an exception, or something not included in our natural expectations. In the following sentence 'not only-but' does not give the author's meaning: -We are monished here of charity, and taught that God is not only a private Father, but a common Father to the whole world.' Here the meaning is that God is not a private Father, the expression supposes that he is a private Father. The 'only' should be omitted.

In the passage from Addison,- By greatness I do not only mean the bulk of any single object, but the largeness of the whole view,' the same error is committed, and there is also a misplacement of the 'not.' 'By greatness I mean not the bulk of any single object, but the largeness of the whole view.' Shorter, 'By greatness I mean largeness, not only in any single object, but in a whole view.'

* Examples of the construction of only:'-'When men grow virtuous in their old age, they only make a sacrifice to God of the Devil's leavings.'-Pope. Here 'only' is rightly placed. Think only of the past, as its remembrance gives you pleasure,' should be think of the past, only as its remembrance.' 'As he did not leave his name, it was only known that a gentleman had called on business:' 'it was known only. I can only refute the accusation by laying before you the whole;' this would mean the only thing I am able to do is to refute; I may not retaliate, or let it drop, I must refute it.' The negroes are to appear at church only in boots;' that is, when the negroes go to church they are to have no clothing but boots. The negroes are to appear only at church in boots,' might mean that they are not to appear anywhere but at church, whether in boots or out of them. The proper arrangement would be to connect the adverbial adjunct 'in boots' with its verb appear,' and to make 'only' qualify 'at church,' and no more: the negroes are to appear in boots only at church.' 'Others killed partridges-he only killed time;' this might imply that he did nothing else but kill time. This is a proper case for the diminutive position of the word. Others killed partridges, he killed time only,' i. e. (sarcastically) nothing of more consequence than time.

11. Another point is raised by the following:- not only Lydia, but all were concerned ;' i. e., it was understood that Lydia was concerned, but not that all (including Lydia) were concerned. It would be necessary to say 'not only Lydia, but all the rest of the family were concerned; or, 'not Lydia alone, but all were concerned.' 'Not only England, but also France and Austria protested' is correct; not only England, but all Europe was alarmed' would involve the same error as above: 'not England alone, but all Europe,' or 'not only England, but also the rest of Europe.**

It is not only hard to distinguish between too little and too much reform, but between the good and evil intentions of different reformers.' We here expect not only hard, but impossible.' 'It is hard to distinguish not only between too little and too much reform, but between the good and (the) evil intentions of different reformers.' 12. The wrong placing of 'not' often gives rise to an imperfect form of negation. John and James were not there,' means that John and James were not there in company. It does not exclude the presence of one of them. The negative should precede in this case neither John nor James was there.' 'Our company was not present' (as a company, but some of us might have been); ‘no member of our company was present.'

13. The Romans understood liberty, at least, as well as we.' This must be interpreted to mean the Romans understood liberty as well as we understand liberty.' The intended meaning is that whatever things the Romans failed to understand they understood liberty.' To express this meaning we might put it thus:-'the Romans understood at least liberty, as well as we do;' liberty, at least, the Romans understood as well as we do.' 'A tear, at least, is due to the unhappy;' at least a tear is a due to the unhappy;' 'a tear is due at least to the unhappy;' 'a tear is due to the unhappy at least;' all express different meanings. This cannot, often at least, be done;' this cannot be done often, at least.' (1. 'It often happens that this cannot be done.' 2. 'It does not often happen that this can be done'). So, man is always capable of laughing;' 'man is capable of laughing always.'

14. Misplaced circumstances, or adverbial adjuncts, generally. To bring every clause into juxtaposition with the part that it is meant to qualify is as requisite as to place single words properly. The following are a few examples of misplaced clauses and adjuncts:

All these circumstances brought close to us a state of things

* The translation of Paul's appeal to Agrippa is not in strict accordance with the English idiom. 'I would to God that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.' He here wishes both Agrippa and all that heard him to be as himself. But Agrippa was one that heard him, and should be excluded. Then again, they could not be both almost and altogether. The following rendering would avoid these objections: 'I would to God that not thou alone, but all that hear me this day, were not almost merely, but altogether such as I am, except these bonds.'

I say not unto thee, Until seven times, but until seventy times seven.' Here the 'not' is manifestly out of its place. I say unto thee, not until seven times only, but until seventy times seven.'

MISPLACED CIRCUMSTANCES.

187

which we never thought to have witnessed (to witness) in peaceful England. In the sister island, indeed, we had read of such horrors, but now they were brought home to our very household hearths.'Swift. We had read, indeed, of such horrors occurring in the sister island,' &c.

6

"The savage people in many places of America, except the government of small families, have no government at all, and live at this day in that savage manner as I said before.'-Hobbes. The second and third clauses ought to be transposed.

Some dozen years afterwards, I had an editorial successor (in the Examiner), Mr. Fonblanque, who had all the wit for which I toiled, without making any pretensions to it.'-Leigh Hunt. Here the concluding clause, if we were to judge by its position, would qualify I; but it is meant to qualify who (Mr. Fonblanque). More explicit thus: without his making any pretensions to it.'

'I shall have a comedy for you, in a season or two at farthest, that I believe will be worth your acceptance.'-Goldsmith. Place the second clause first, in order to connect the relative with its antecedent, comedy.'

PLACING OF PREPOSITIONS.

15. Prepositions should be placed as near as possible to the words they govern.

The following sentence is faulty in this respect:-' appears Lausanne-with at its foot the little village of Ouchy.'

But it is to be remarked that there is a certain inversion allowable in English, whereby a preposition is far removed from its regimen. The principal case is when it governs a relative or interrogative word. But there are other cases, as may be seen from this example:-now Sir Francis, though he was for a long time our hero, we never exchanged a word with.'

16. In addition to the three great processes, named concord, government, and order of words, grammarians consider that certain cases of the syntax of sentences are explained by ELLIPSIS, which would therefore be ranked as a fourth binding process of composition. Many examples of ellipsis have already occurred. I sent to the bookseller's 'whose is this image and superscription?' that (point) is (shop);' the point;' 'the greatest man (of the men) on earth;' they love each (loves the) other;' 'come (you);' 'how shall I curse (him) whom God hath not cursed?' who's that knocks?'

An honest man, close buttoned to the chin,
Broad cloth without, and a warm heart within.

Here there is an ellipsis of the participle.

'Can you sing?' 'I will try to; I) thank you;' nothing (is) so good, but it may be abused; they applied to the Duke, of all men.'

6

17. The opposite of Ellipsis is PLEONASM, or excess of words, which is sometimes permitted for rhetorical force: for the deck, it was their field of fame;' my banks, they are furnished with bees;' 'the night it was gloomy, the wind it was high.'

18. If we were to dwell on incidental and exceptional constructions, we might note the following as a case of PARENTHESIS, or the insertion of an unconnected expression in the middle of a sentence: 'our ideas are movements of the nerves of sense, as of the optic nerve, in recollecting visible ideas, suppose of a triangular piece of ivory.'

EXAMPLES OF THE USE OF THE RELATIVES.

It is proposed here to give an extensive series of examples to illustrate the application of the relative pronouns and their substitutes. 1. The distinction observed by our idiomatic writers between 'that,' on the one hand, and 'who' and 'which,' on the other, although for the present very much lost sight of, deserves to be revived, both for perspicuity and for lightening the composition. The following examples will serve to illustrate the distinction:

In general, Mr. Burchell was fondest of the company of children, whom he used to call harmless little men.' 'Whom' is here correctly used, being the equivalent of ' and them he used to call,' &c.

Bacon at last, a mighty man, arose,
Whom a wise king and nation chose
Lord Chancellor of both their laws.

Here also whom' is equal to 'and him.'

In the following instance the relative is restrictive or defining, and 'that' would be preferable: the conclusion of the Iliad is like the exit of a great man out of company whom he has entertained magnificently.' Addison may be quoted as an authority for the use of 'that' in restrictive clauses; for example :-' a man of polite imagination is let into a great many pleasures that the vulgar are not capable of receiving.' Both relatives are introduced correctly in this passage:- she had learned that from Mrs. Wood, who had heard it from her husband, who had heard it at the public-house from the landlord, who had been let into the secret by the boy that carried the beer to some of the prisoners.'

The following sentences are ambiguous under the modern system of using who' for both purposes:-I met the boatman who took me across the ferry.' If who' is the proper relative here, the meaning is 'I met the boatman, and he took me across,' it being supposed the boatman is known. But if there be several boatmen, and I wish to indicate one in particular by the circumstance that he had taken me across the ferry, should use that.' The youngest boy who has learned to dance is James.' This means either the youngest boy is James, and he has learned to dance,' or 'of the boys, the youngest that has learned to dance is James.' This last sense is restrictive, and 'that' should be used.

6

2. Turning now to which,' we may have a series of parallel examples: the court, which gives currency to manners, should be exemplary.' Here the meaning is the court should be exemplary, for the court gives currency to manners.' Which is the correct relative in this case:-The cat, which you despise so much, is a very useful animal,' The relative here also is co-ordinating, and not

RELATIVE GOVERNED BY A PREPOSITION.

189

restrictive. If it were intended to point out one individual cat specially despised by the person addressed, 'that' would convey the sense. A theory which does not tend to the improvement of practice is utterly unworthy of regard.' The meaning is restrictive; a theory that does not tend.' The following sentence from Goldsmith gives 'that' instead of which:'-age, that lessens the enjoyment of life, increases our desire of living.' This error is uncommon.

Their faith tended to make them improvident; but a wise instinct taught them that if there was one thing which ought not to be left to fate, or to the precepts of a deceased prophet, it was the artillery;' a case where that' is the proper relative.

'All words, which are signs of complex ideas, furnish matter of mistake.' This gives an erroneous impression, and should be 'all words that are signs of complex ideas.'

3. It is necessary for the proper understanding of which' to advert to its peculiar function of referring to a whole clause as the antecedent: 'William ran along the top of the wall, which alarmed his mother very much.' The antecedent is obviously not the noun wall,' but the fact expressed by the entire clause,- William ran,' &c. He by no means wants sense, which only serves to aggravate his former folly,' namely, (not sense, but) the circumstance that he does not want sense.' He is neither over-exalted by prosperity, nor too much depressed by misfortune; which you must allow marks a great mind.' "We have done many things which we ought not to have done,' might mean 'we ought not to have done many things;' that is, we ought to have done few things.' That' would give the exact sense intended: we have done many things that we ought not to have done.' 'He began to look after his affairs himself, which was the way to make them prosper.'

In all cases of prescription, the universal practice of judges is to direct juries by analogy to the Statute of Limitations, to decide against incorporeal rights which have for many years been relinquished;' say instead, incorporeal rights that have for many years, and the sense is clear.

4. We must next allude to the cases where the relative is governed by a preposition. We can use a preposition with who' and which,' but when the relative is 'that,' the preposition must be thrown to the end of the clause. Owing to an imperfect appreciation of the genius of our language, offence was taken at this usage by some of our leading writers at the beginning of last century, and to this circumstance we must refer the disuse of that' as the relative of restriction.*

*Speaking of Dryden, Hallam says, 'His Essay on Dramatic Poesy, published in 1668, was reprinted sixteen years afterwards, and it is curious to observe the changes which Dryden made in the expression. Malone has carefully noted all these; they show both the care the author took with his own style, and the change which was gradually working in the English language. The Anglicism of terminating the sentence with a preposition is rejected. Thus, "I cannot think so contemptibly of the age I live in," is exchanged for "the age in which I live." "A deeper expression of belief than all the actor can persuade us to," is altered, "can insinuate into us.' And, though the old form continued in use long after the time of Dryden, it has of late years been reckoned inelegant, and proscribed in all cases, perhaps with an unnecessary fastidiousness, to which I have not uniformly deferred, since our language