LETTER CLIII

London, December 19, O. S. 1751—­[Note the date, which indicates that the sojourn with the author has ended.]

My dear friend:  You are now entered upon a scene of business, where I hope you will one day make a figure.  Use does a great deal, but care and attention must be joined to it.  The first thing necessary in writing letters of business, is extreme clearness and perspicuity; every paragraph should be so clear and unambiguous, that the dullest fellow in the world may not be able to mistake it, nor obliged to read it twice in order to understand it.  This necessary clearness implies a correctness, without excluding an elegance of style.  Tropes, figures, antitheses, epigrams, etc., would be as misplaced and as impertinent in letters of business, as they are sometimes (if judiciously used) proper and pleasing in familiar letters, upon common and trite subjects.  In business, an elegant simplicity, the result of care, not of labor, is required.  Business must be well, not affectedly dressed; but by no means negligently.  Let your first attention be to clearness, and read every paragraph after you have written it, in the critical view of discovering whether it is possible that any one man can mistake the true sense of it:  and correct it accordingly.

Our pronouns and relatives often create obscurity or ambiguity; be therefore exceedingly attentive to them, and take care to mark out with precision their particular relations.  For example, Mr. Johnson acquainted me that he had seen Mr. Smith, who had promised him to speak to Mr. Clarke, to return him (Mr. Johnson) those papers, which he (Mr. Smith) had left some time ago with him (Mr. Clarke):  it is better to repeat a name, though unnecessarily, ten times, than to have the person mistaken once.  Who, you know, is singly relative to persons, and cannot be applied to things; which and that are chiefly relative to things, but not absolutely exclusive of persons; for one may say, the man that robbed or killed such-a-one; but it is better to say, the man who robbed or killed.  One never says, the man or the woman which.  Which and that, though chiefly relative to things, cannot be always used indifferently as to things, and the ‘euoovca’ must sometimes determine their, place.  For instance, the letter which I received from you, which you referred to in your last, which came by Lord Albemarle’s messenger which I showed to such-a-one; I would change it thus—­The letter that I received from you; which you referred to in your last, that came by Lord Albemarle’s messenger, and which I showed to such-a-one.

Business does not exclude (as possibly you wish it did) the usual terms of politeness and good-breeding; but, on the contrary, strictly requires them:  such as, I have the honor to acquaint your Lordship; permit me to assure you; if I may be allowed to give my opinion, etc.  For the minister abroad, who writes to the minister at home, writes to his superior; possibly to his patron, or at least to one who he desires should be so.