Instant English for journalists 5th edition wynford hicks & gavin allen download PDF complete chapte
English for Journalists 5th Edition
Wynford Hicks & Gavin Allen
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/english-for-journalists-5th-edition-wynford-hicks-gavin -allen/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
English for Journalists has established itself in newsrooms the world over as an invaluable guide to the basics of English and to those aspects of writing, such as reporting speech, house style and jargon, which are specific to the language of journalism. Written in a highly accessible and engaging style, English for Journalists covers the fundamentals of grammar, spelling, punctuation and journalistic writing, with all points illustrated through a series of concise and illuminating examples. The book features practical, easy-to-follow advice with examples of common mistakes and problem words.
This thirtieth anniversary edition features a revised first chapter on the state of English today by author Wynford Hicks, and a chapter on writing for social media by Gavin Allen, along with an updated glossary and references.
This is an essential guide to written English for all practising journalists and students of journalism today.
Wynford Hicks has worked as a reporter, subeditor, feature writer, editor and editorial consultant in magazines, newspapers and books, and as a teacher of journalism specialising in the use of English, subediting and writing styles. He is the author of Quite Literally.
Gavin Allen is Digital Journalism Lecturer at Cardiff University School of Journalism, Media and Culture. He has been a journalist for 20 years, latterly as Associate Editor of Mirror.co.uk, having previously worked at MailOnline, MSN and WalesOnline.
Media Skills
Edited by Richard Keeble, Lincoln University
The Media Skills series provides a concise and thorough introduction to a rapidly changing media landscape. Each book is written by media and journalism lecturers or experienced professionals and is a key resource for a particular industry. Offering helpful advice and information and using practical examples from print, broadcast and digital media, as well as discussing ethical and regulatory issues, Media Skills books are essential guides for students and media professionals.
Magazine Production
Second Edition
Jason Whittaker
Interviewing for Journalists
Third Edition
Sally Adams and Emma Lee-Potter
Designing for Newspapers and Magazines
Second Edition
Chris Frost
Sports Journalism
The State of Play
Tom Bradshaw and Daragh Minogue
Freelancing for Journalists
Lily Canter and Emma Wilkinson
Writing for Journalists
Fourth Edition
Matt Swaine with Harriett Gilbert and Gavin Allen
Ethics for Journalists
Third Edition
Edited by Sallyanne Duncan
English for Journalists
Thirtieth Anniversary Edition
Wynford Hicks with Gavin Allen
For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge.com/ Media-Skills/book-series/SE0372
English for Journalists
Thirtieth Anniversary Edition
FIFTH EDITION
Wynford Hicks with Gavin Allen
Designed cover image: coldsnowstorm / Getty Images
Fifth edition published 2023 by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN and by Routledge
The right of Wynford Hicks and Gavin Allen (for Chapter 9) to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
The right of Wynford Hicks to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
First edition published by Routledge 1993 Fourth edition published by Routledge 2013 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022060427
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022060428
ISBN: 9781032232645 (hbk)
ISBN: 9781032232652 (pbk)
ISBN: 9781003276500 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003276500
Typeset in Goudy by Newgen Publishing UK
Introduction: how this book began
English for Journalists has a history. In the first edition I thanked the Wolverhampton Express and Star for permission to use material from A Journalist’s Guide to the Use of English by Ted Bottomley and Anthony Loftus, first published in 1971 and long out of print. That book had begun as an incompany training manual for subeditors.
In fact there would have been little incentive to write EfJ if the Guide had remained in print. It covered the basics pretty well, giving clear advice and putting such things as grammar and punctuation into a journalistic context. It also had useful things to say about style. For several years, when I was teaching periodical journalism at (what was then) the London College of Printing, I ordered bulk copies of the Guide direct from the publishers and sold them on to students.
But with the Guide no longer available, and encouraged by various people, including Philip Marsh, the founder of PMA Training, I put together the first edition of this book in 1993. I would like to thank all those friends and colleagues who have since made constructive comments and provided useful examples of usage to be followed or avoided – even if some of them remain unaware of how useful they have been.
Wynford Hicks
November 2022
English today
The first edition of this book gave some simple advice: ‘Write for your reader; use a clear form of English, avoiding jargon, slang, pomposity, academic complexity, obscurity …’
It pointed out that modern English has a rich and varied history and it noted: ‘The strongest influence on the way we speak and write is undoubtedly American. In the global village of satellites and computers it is in American rather than English that nation speaks unto nation.’ Thirty years later, in a media world where the technology changes every five minutes, that looks like an understatement.
Above all, though, there’s social media (or as some people, notably the satirical magazine Private Eye, prefer to call it, anti-social media) which has grown rapidly and is increasingly dominant in everyday life. For many, particularly young, people it has replaced the traditional ‘legacy media’ of newspapers, TV and radio. Crucially, social media is interactive, allowing users to be originators of material as well as consumers.
Since texting requires basic literacy, the news isn’t all bad. A study reported by the Daily Mail ‘found no evidence that a child’s development in written language was disrupted by using text abbreviations’. On the contrary, there seemed to be a positive relationship between texting and the ability to read and spell. This could be because texters needed to understand sound structures and syllables in words.
But owners and users of social media are accused of all sorts of crimes, including spreading disinformation, invasion of privacy, displays of hostile tribal (aka mob) behaviour, the bullying of individuals ending in their acute misery, psychological trauma – even suicide. The idealistic hopes and dreams that launched social media are a thing of the past. As three American
academics* have put it, social media ‘is no longer an emerging technology imbued with the possibility of fostering social change by giving voice to small groups; it has instead become a tool of the powerful used to dominate, harass and coerce [the] vulnerable’. At the same time it’s clear that journalists cannot afford to ignore social media – which is why this edition of English for Journalists includes a chapter offering some suggestions on how to use it in a positive way.
‘Britishisms’
Some say the American–British exchange is a two-way process. Indeed there have been complaints from academic linguists in the United States that British idioms are becoming too popular over there. The late Geoffrey Nunberg of the University of California at Berkeley was once quoted as saying: ‘Spot on – it’s just ludicrous. You are just impersonating an Englishman when you say spot on. Will do – I hear that from Americans. That should be put into quarantine.’
Other ‘Britishisms’ that have been recorded are: sell-by date, go missing and chat up. Just as James Bond and the Beatles invaded the United States in the 1960s, Harry Potter has been waving his magic wand there since 1998 so ginger has become a fashionable American word to describe red hair. It slipped through the ruthless American editing process of the Harry Potter books that made every dustbin a trashcan, every jumper a sweater and every torch a flashlight. Even the title of the first one, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, was considered too difficult for young American readers, who had to have philosopher changed to sorcerer.
When she had the necessary clout JK Rowling had the original title restored. But the American editions of the books as a whole still include extensive translations of ‘Britishisms’ (the lists are easily found on the internet).
American spelling …
The trend on the internet is clear: American spellings are more common as software defaults to the American form and often fails to recognise the British one. As one poster replied after having their furore ‘corrected’ to furor: ‘I
* Joan Donovan, Emily Dreyfus and Brian Friedberg in Meme Wars: The Untold Story of the Online Battles Upending Democracy in America, Bloomsbury, 2022.
know! I originally had furore but the American spell-check built into Chrome suggested furor, which appears to be their term for the same thing.’
British journalists working for media in general rather than employed by a single outlet used to call themselves freelances; now they tend to be ‘freelancers’.
Except among extra-careful writers the British distinction between licence/practice as nouns and license/practise as verbs is getting lost (the Americans prefer license with an s for both noun and verb and practice with a c for both noun and verb). Election information for the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society produced by the (British) Electoral Reform Services Ltd had license with an s used as a noun in the small print. Many British people follow American practice when they write informally.
On -ise/-ize there is no clear pattern. American practice favours -ize while in Britain the trend has been away from it. The Times, which used to be the only national newspaper loyal to -ize, abandoned it in 1992 while in the same year the Geneva-based International Labour Organisation went the other way and adopted -ize, thus changing the spelling of its own name. The European Union prefers -ise.
Several American variants, such as airplane (for aeroplane), program (for programme) and fetus (for foetus), are increasingly common in British English –see p66.
Another increasingly common variant – dwarves for dwarfs – which may or may not look American certainly isn’t: Walt Disney’s 1937 film had the title Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. In fact it was the learned Oxford academic JRR Tolkien, whose first fantasy book, The Hobbit, also came out in 1937, who is particularly responsible for the popularisation of ‘dwarves’. He called it ‘a piece of private bad grammar’, claiming to have adopted it to distance his fantasy world from the real one. So the ‘dwarves’ spelling should be restricted to fantasy, keeping elves company.
… grammar…
A traditional difference between British and American grammar is in the use of prepositions. For example, American kids get to be on the team if selected whereas British children are in it. Americans usually play on weekends whereas the British play at weekends. If there’s no football/soccer field available Americans have to play on the street whereas the British play in the street …
But now in the UK American usage is increasingly dominant. Google the phrase ‘word on the street’ and what do you get? Word on the Street, an English language teaching programme co-produced by the BBC and the British Council. Over on ITV the script for that posh historical soap about the upper classes and their underlings Downton Abbey was said to include a London jazz club ‘on’ as opposed to ‘in’ Greek Street, Soho.
Popular usage is one thing but in formal grammar there isn’t much difference between the two versions of English – at least as far as recommendations are concerned. In That or Which, and Why (Routledge, 2007) Evan Jenkins, a columnist on language for the Columbia Journalism Review, made a number of points familiar to British readers. He acknowledged that the British are more relaxed than the Americans about the traditional that/which rule (see p27) and concluded:
The that/which rule is arbitrary and overly subtle and ought to be done away with. It is without intrinsic sense, but as long as large numbers of teachers and editors insist on it, we do well to understand it.
… and punctuation
In punctuation there are some noticeable differences. Here are a few examples: in the US full points are much more common after titles such as Dr and Mr; the full point after a single quoted word is always inside the quote marks, eg The soloist was ‘brilliant.’ (as opposed to The soloist was ‘brilliant’.); in the date the month comes before the day, usually with a comma, eg October 10, 2022 (as opposed to 10 October 2022); and the colon is used for time instead of the full point, eg 10:30 (as opposed to 10.30).
Fragments
As writing in general – and journalism in particular – has become increasingly informal and colloquial, there is confusion about the most fundamental point of all. What’s a sentence – and does it matter?
The first edition of English for Journalists followed A Journalist’s Guide and said: ‘A sentence is a group of words expressing a complete thought.’ The second edition (1998) added a dictionary definition – ‘a piece of writing or speech between two full stops or equivalent pauses’ – and stressed that a single word could be a sentence.
The Guide’s original discussion of sentences advised that incomplete ones (fragments) should be used ‘very sparingly and in the right place’ since journalists should avoid writing like ‘the chatty columnist’.
But good columnists have always had a big influence on the way newcomers aspired to write. For 30 years or so from 1935 the Daily Mirror’s Bill Connor (Cassandra) broke many of the ‘rules’ of writing that were being drummed into the heads of schoolchildren, certainly the silly ban on ‘and’ to start sentences –but above all the one about sentences needing a subject and a verb:
I suppose I was mortally afraid of Mr Beulah for the best part of five years.
Dead scared.
And especially so at this, the third week in September …
Other iconoclastic columnists celebrated for their style were Connor’s successor at the Mirror, Keith Waterhouse (who later moved to the Mail), and Bernard Levin, who was famous for his long and complex (but beautifully constructed) sentences. Levin once returned to his berth at the Times after some time away with a ‘sentence’ of three words: ‘And another thing.’
So the fragment is nothing new. But now it’s everywhere – for example in a feature on ‘our paedophile culture’ in the London Review of Books: ‘At the BBC these people became like gods. Even the weird ones. Even the ones who everybody could tell were deranged …’
So is there a problem? Not in principle, not any more. But there are still some points worth making – see p45.
Meaning
It may irritate some people to hear British politicians describe themselves as ‘stepping up to the plate in the upcoming elections’ where once they might have gone out to bat in the forthcoming ones but the meaning of most Americanisms is clear. Most but not all: what does ‘you’re batting zero for two’ mean, for example? And why is the phrase ‘a red-headed stepchild’ used as an insult?*
Meaning is key here. The ground floor in Britain is the first floor in the US; to bathe in the US is to have a bath in Britain (traditional Britons bathe in the
* 1. You’ve had two goes at something and failed twice (like stepping up to the plate it’s from baseball). 2. According to the most convincing account, this is the child of a (male) Irish immigrant labourer in New York and a woman who goes on to marry someone else.
sea in bathing suits); homely means friendly or kindly in Britain, plain or even ugly in the US. ‘I’m not on the homely side’ could mean ‘I’m pretty hot really’. So it’s not something to be confused about when writing or reading an online dating profile.
Even the best educated and most sophisticated people are under extreme pressure to keep up. Mary Beard (Cambridge classics professor, Times Literary Supplement columnist and TV historian) once ended her blog on a carol concert by asking: ‘What actually does “no crib for a bed” mean?’ The replies she got were generally scornful. One of the more polite ones was: ‘I remember thinking about this when I was about five and working it out for myself.’*
‘You’re
welcome’
Another way of looking at British versus American is through the eyes of foreigners. What do the French or the Chinese make of these two versions of English? Do they spot the differences?
Books and leaflets aimed at French speakers learning English have traditionally used visual clichés like the union jack, rain and Big Ben to make the British connection explicit. A French-published booklet (L’anglais correct, First Editions, Paris, 2012) had a front cover showing a bowler-hatted Briton offering his umbrella to a rather wet woman who, quite correctly, says: ‘Thank you!’
Bowler hat then seems to spoil the whole thing by replying: ‘You’re welcome.’ This is an imported American expression. Traditionally there wasn’t a stock British response to ‘Thank you’. In the old days you could say any one of several friendly things – don’t mention it, it’s my pleasure, you’ve earned it, I hope you enjoy it (or, as one of my relatives used to say when he’d given me, aged eight or so, a half-crown, ‘Don’t spend it all on beer’). Or you could just smile and say nothing at all. It wasn’t considered rude then – and among older people it isn’t rude now.
But ‘You’re welcome’ has become a standard response to ‘Thank you’ worldwide, the equivalent of de nada or de rien, and it surely makes sense for people learning English to use it (though they may well hear actual Londoners say all sorts of other things instead from ‘No worries’ or ‘No probs’ to ‘Cheers’).
So the French authors of L’anglais correct have not made a faux pas here: instead they have usefully demonstrated how widespread the Americanisation of
* The carol referred to, ‘Away in a Manger’ (1885), is from the US where a crib was already a child’s bed rather than another word for manger (animal feeding trough).
British English has become. In fact, they have done this throughout their booklet without trying to sound American, using all sorts of expressions that originated on the other side of the Atlantic: you’re kidding (joking); invited her for (to) dinner; be mad at (angry with); the last cookie (biscuit); be right back (back soon) …
Incidentally, ‘You’re welcome’ as a routine expression may have come to Britain from the US but its origins are certainly English. The (American) language expert Barry Popik has even found an example in Shakespeare:
LODORICO: Madam, good night; I humbly thank your ladyship.
DESDEMONA: Your honour is most welcome.
The ‘baby boom’ myth
(Othello, act 4, scene 3)
The most striking example of the Americanisation of Britain and our local dialect is the prevalence of the ‘baby boom’ cliché on this side of the Atlantic. A baby boomer, according to the US census bureau, is a person – that is to say, an American – who was born between 1946 and 1964 (though other sources say the boom started earlier). And there was in fact a huge increase in the birth rate in the US which lasted from the end of the second world war to the 1960s. But in Britain there wasn’t – or rather there was a brief peak in births around 1946–7, followed by a decline; and then another peak in the 1960s.
Collectively the media have never doubted that there was a postwar baby boom in Britain coinciding with the American one: newspapers, magazines, books, TV and radio have all taken it for granted. The Tory ex-minister David Willetts, now in the House of Lords, once wrote a polemic attacking ‘the boomers’ and called it The Pinch: How the Baby Boomers Took Their Children’s Future – and Why They Should Give it Back (Atlantic, 2010).
Two British journalists, both born in 1945, have broken ranks and insisted on quoting the facts, which don’t support the argument. The late Ian Jack once wrote in the Guardian that ‘baby boomer’ was ‘a term borrowed from America and quite wrongly applied to the postwar pattern of British birth rates’. He pointed out: ‘Not until 1975 were as few babies born as in 1945; more British babies were born between 1956 and 1966 than in the so-called boomer decade of 1945 to 1955.’ Nobody was paying attention, though, even in Jack’s own office. The Guardian sub responsible for his column gave it the headline ‘We baby boomers blame ourselves for this mess …’
On the other hand, Gavin Weightman was able to headline his own piece ‘The myth of the baby boomers’ because he published it himself online as a blog. He wrote:
Born in 1945 I am, according to the popular accounts currently in circulation, a ‘baby boomer’. My contention is that I am not. The year I was born was not a bumper year for babies. Nor was 1948, or 49, or 50, or 51, or 52, or 53, or 54, or 55, or 56 …
Whatever else the ‘baby boomer’ debate is about it is predicated on the notion that there was, after the end of the last war, a sustained rise in births which produced a population bulge. This is certainly what happened in North America between 1945 and 1964. It did not happen here.
But – another but – the myth of the ‘British baby boom’ is so widely believed that it would be pointless in routine journalism to insist on contradicting it. As the newspaperman in the film The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance cynically put it: ‘When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.’ And the line before that quote? ‘This is the West, sir’ – somewhere that prefers the cliché to the truth. There is also a problem with the extension of generational labelling, eg to the so-called ‘silent generation’, said to precede the baby boomers. Comically, this categorisation includes both the original American rock ‘n’ rollers like Little Richard (1932) and Elvis Presley (1935) and their British successors, John Lennon of the Beatles (1940) and Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones (1943) … silent, you said?
But there are signs of academic and commonsense resistance to the whole business of classifying people by generations. The Observer columnist Catherine Bennett quoted* a study by three American psychologists which compared the trendy doctrine of ‘generationalism’ to the women’s magazine enthusiasm for ‘astrology’. As the study said, being a millennial or a snowflake or belonging to generation X, Y or Z says as much about you as whether you’re an Aries or a Pisces.
Homegrown clichés
The British don’t need to import clichés – we’ve got plenty of our own. And the most irritating ones are irritating because they’re either routine misuse of language or simple nonsense. King Canute and the curate’s egg (see p133) are
* 14 November 2021, referring to Generationalism, St Louis University, USA, May 2018.
old faithfuls mentioned in early editions of this book; Philip Larkin’s ‘Sexual intercourse began in 1963 …’ is relatively new.
According to Larkin, sex is said to have started between the end of the ban on DH Lawrence’s novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover and the Beatles first LP (Please Please Me). I suppose it’s technically possible since the LP, recorded in February, was released on 22 March 1963. But the ban on the book was effectively over before the 1960s even began, because the liberalising law (the Obscene Publications Act) came into force in August 1959.
So the dates – unlike the rhymes – don’t really work: ‘nineteen sixty-three’ (rather than, say, 1961) is there because it rhymes with ‘late for me’ and ‘first LP’.
It’s worth remembering that Larkin, when he wrote the poem ‘Annus Mirabilis’ in 1967, was a middle-aged man for whom sexual intercourse had in fact begun way back in 1945. And his intention in the poem was certainly not to provide a facile intro for a generation of lazy journalists.
Political correctness, gender and race
The term ‘political correctness’ is often used by linguistic conservatives to rubbish attempts by radicals to sanitise language. But it didn’t start out that way: it was originally an ironic expression used by the American new left in the 1960s and 1970s, as in ‘We could stop at McDonald’s down the road if you’re hungry … but it wouldn’t be politically correct’. This example is quoted by the academic linguist Deborah Cameron in her book Verbal Hygiene (Routledge, 2012); she emphasises that the expression was understood by insiders as a joke at their own expense.
Another term that has shifted in meaning is ‘gender’, which for most English speakers has lost its association with grammar and become a polite synonym for sex. As Cameron says: ‘You hear people inquiring about the gender of animals.’ But she emphasises that for the feminists who ‘did most to put the word into circulation, gender was a technical term which took its meaning from a contrast with sex’. The intended contrast was between the biological (sex) and the social (gender), which was related to the feminist claim that many traditional differences between men and women were social rather than biological in origin.
The distinction between sex and gender has now become an important aspect of the discussion/debate/conflict over ‘transgenderism’: a transgender (trans)
person is defined as someone whose self-chosen gender identity or expression does not correspond with their birth sex.
Feminism is responsible for numerous attempts to sanitise the language. Obvious examples are avoiding male nouns like chairman and male pronouns (eg he, him) in stories where both sexes/genders are involved. In the first case ‘chair’ is now generally accepted; in the second a knowledge of English grammar and usage helps avoid awkward alternatives such as the repeated use of ‘he or she’. Nobody is compelled to land themselves with contrived sentences like ‘If somebody calls, ask him or her to wait’. As the distinguished lexicographer Robert Burchfield has pointed out: ‘Over the centuries writers of standing have used they, their and them with reference to a singular pronoun or noun …’ Writers of standing – and so too ordinary users of the English language.
Curiously – perversely, you might think – some writers have rejected the commonsense solution of using ‘they’ when the sex/gender of the person is not specified, preferring the ‘he or she’ formula or, even worse, insisting on writing ‘she’ regardless of the context. The (female) writer Lionel Shriver once lambasted a male writer, James Rickards, who did precisely this in what she called his ‘otherwise excellent’ book Currency Wars. In her commentary she complained that the ‘she’ pronoun was used constantly in a context where not a single person was female. As she put it, ‘the writer’s grammatical brownnosing backfires. It serves only to highlight the fact that, despite...trendy style guidelines, his professional world is overwhelmingly male.’* So ‘they’ it should have been.
‘They’ is also a convenient and appropriate alternative pronoun to both ‘he’ and ‘she’ for people who are transgender; as a word already in frequent everyday use it is preferable to made-up words that can only stop the reader mid-sentence with a jerk. So unless it’s your intention to disconcert, the best advice is to stick with ‘they’.
Misogyny, which once simply meant ‘hatred of women’, has over the past halfcentury or so changed its meaning; or rather it has acquired an alternative meaning similar to sexism. This was highlighted by the so-called Misogyny Speech by the then Australian prime minister Julia Gillard in 2012. Time and again in her powerful verbal assault on her political opponent Tony Abbott, the leader of the opposition, Gillard bracketed the two words ‘sexism’ and ‘misogyny’; at no point did she distinguish between them.
After the speech, which had an immediate impact and has continued to resonate ever since, Sue Butler, the editor of the Australian Macquarie Dictionary,
* ‘Grammar and Genitals’ in Standpoint, 26 November 2013.
said its definition of ‘misogyny’ would be expanded to reflect this change in usage: ‘Since the 1980s misogyny has come to be used as a synonym for sexism, a synonym with bite, but nevertheless with the meaning of entrenched prejudice against women rather than pathological hatred.’
In a commentary that followed the speech and Butler’s comment, Deborah Cameron said that the two words ‘are not exact synonyms, because sexism has also changed its meaning over time’. Whereas sexism had once meant institutionalised prejudice or discrimination against women, it had gradually acquired the broader meaning of any such prejudice or discrimination: logically men could now be the victims of sexism – hence the need for the word misogyny to identify prejudice and discrimination against women, which incidentally was far worse.
Cameron also made the point that replacing the word sexism by misogyny was ‘part of a larger shift in the language we use to label prejudice and discrimination’. Whereas once we had made do with plain words like racism, sexism and ageism we now tended to use longer ones with a clinical origin like homophobia, transphobia and Islamophobia.
This change comes at a cost. A casual remark that might once have been labelled merely as ‘anti-gay’ or ‘anti-Muslim’ – a joke in bad taste, thoughtless banter – suddenly gets labelled as ‘homophobia’ or ‘Islamophobia’ – irrational fear and loathing of the other. Thus the offence is magnified by linguistic inflation. In general, long, complex words, particularly from Latin and Greek, sound more impressive than short Anglo-Saxon ones and can be given a twist or a spin. So ‘holocaust’ can be pushed beyond its primary meaning. ‘Paedophilia’, which originally meant sex with children, is now used to cover sex with young people above the age of puberty but below the legal age of consent.
Black Americans can/should be called African Americans. That is the current convention – but nothing in life is simple, particularly not in racial politics. In December 2012 Tim Scott, a right-wing Republican from Charleston, South Carolina, became the first ‘African American’ in more than a century to be appointed to the US Senate. But because of his conservative views there was controversy about what to call him.
The (London) Times reported the Reverend Joseph Darby, a prominent black local leader, as saying: ‘I would acknowledge the fact that he was the first senator of colour. I would not really consider him to be the first African-American senator.’ This was because ‘his mindset does not really reflect the African Americans in South Carolina’. So ‘African American’ can’t be a simple synonym for ‘black’ after all, whereas ‘person of colour’ can be.
But should black now be Black, as is widespread in the United States in the wake of the 2020 killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police and the Black Lives Matter protest movement? In Britain liberal publications such as the Guardian and the London Review of Books have followed suit, but not, as yet, the rest of the mainstream media.
One point that keeps cropping up when the question is debated in newsrooms is consistency: if Black then why not White? Most American media have decided for Black and against White but two exceptions are the National Association of Black Journalists (‘Whenever a color is used to appropriately describe race then it should be capitalized, such as Black community, Brown community, White community’) and the Chicago Manual of Style in an online update: ‘We now prefer to write Black with a capital B when it refers to racial and ethnic identity … as a matter of editorial consistency White and similar terms may also be capitalized.’
The African-American example quoted above illustrates a fundamental truth about language: the meaning of a word is its use. In itself a word means neither one thing nor the other, so different people who use it can mean different things by it. This makes it difficult to insist that a particular usage or interpretation is the only possible one: context and intention matter.
Insults reclaimed
In politics there is a long history of the reclaimed insult, as with the ‘Whigs’ and ‘Tories’ of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century British politics. The original ‘Whigs’ were Scottish cattle rustlers and horse thieves while the original ‘Tories’ were Irish Catholic outlaws and bandits. In both cases members of the insulted party adopted the label they were given. Similarly, in the 1960s when a Tory MP called German demonstrators in Grosvenor Square ‘foreign scum’, the response from British protesters was: ‘We are all foreign scum’, which became a celebrated poster.
The word ‘Yid’, which in Yiddish has no derogatory meaning, has often been used as a term of abuse by anti-semites. In Britain it has for decades been directed at supporters of Tottenham Hotspur, many of whom were Jewish. The Spurs fans’ response has been to reclaim the insult and declare themselves ‘Yiddos’ – guilty as charged – in spite of supercilious criticism from outside.
Swearing and taboo
From cases of alleged racist abuse it’s clear that in certain contexts swearing is routine and accepted by the participants while racist words are not. Giving evidence in court a black British footballer, Anton Ferdinand, once said that being called ‘a cunt’ was fine. ‘But when someone brings your colour into it, it takes it to another level and it’s very hurtful.’
In Australia the white cricketer Darren Lehmann received a five-match ban in 2003 for calling the Sri Lankans ‘black cunts’. His offence was not the abusive and sexist C word but the use of the word ‘black’ as an insult.
Of course, most newspapers don’t print these swear words but semi-hide them with asterisks. The paradox is that the swear words are acceptable to some people whereas black (used abusively), which can be printed, is taboo.
Proven (and other pomposities)
As the Guardian style guide warns: ‘Proven is not the normal past tense of prove but a term in Scottish law (“not proven”) and in certain English idioms (used adjectivally), eg “proven record”.’
But ‘proven’ creeps in everywhere: a Guardian Saturday book review section included this example from the Australian writer Thomas Keneally: ‘… the book might have proven to be highly accessible …’ And on the same day the columnist Jonathan Freedland wrote: ‘Any new idea or policy proposal … must be proven compatible with what those long-dead politicians of the late 18th century set down …’
With proven used as part of a verb go (or should go) all sorts of other pomposities, such as ‘suffice it to say’ (often reduced to illiteracy by the omission of ‘it’); ‘beg the question’ (when used to mean raise the question); ‘whilst’ and ‘amongst’ as literary variants on while and among; ‘anticipate’ to mean expect; ‘address’ to mean answer; ‘accrue’ to mean ‘acquire’; ‘critique’ to mean criticise; ‘decimate’ to mean kill or destroy; ‘demise’ to mean death; ‘dilemma’ to mean problem (on a posh problem page like the Observer’s); ‘infer’ to mean imply; ‘reference’ to mean ‘refer to’ …
House style
House style includes everything from policy on important issues like ‘political correctness’, gender and race to detail – whether to use single or double
quotes, when to use italics and whether to prefer ‘spelt’ or ‘spelled’. Published and internet style guides also provide a useful commentary on changing English usage.
For example, both the Times and the Economist disagree with the Guardian on accents. They both say we should keep accents, eg on café, cliché and communiqué, when they make a crucial difference to pronunciation. The Times is pretty prescriptive about none, which ‘almost always takes the singular verb’, while the Economist is more relaxed: none ‘usually takes a singular verb’. But the Guardian, which once insisted on it, says: ‘It is a (very persistent) myth that “none” has to take a singular verb.’
By contrast, on ‘like’ and ‘such as’, it is the Economist that takes the liberal position. Whereas the Guardian and the Times still disapprove, the Economist bites the bullet and says: ‘Authorities like Fowler and Gowers is an acceptable alternative to authorities such as Fowler and Gowers.’
In this edition of English for Journalists, as in previous ones, I have included a style guide. In some cases there isn’t much to choose between the different options. But the argument for consistency is very simple: variation that has no point is distracting; adopting a consistent approach in matters of detail shows courtesy to the reader and helps them get your message.
2
Grammar: the rules
As in previous editions of this book, this key chapter summarises the essential rules and conventions of traditional grammar that a journalist needs to know. This is an important pragmatic point for a writer who originates copy and a crucial one for a subeditor who checks and corrects it. But a single chapter cannot possibly answer all the grammatical questions that might arise, particularly since there have been huge changes recently in the academic treatment of English, above all in university departments of linguistics. Rather than extend the treatment of grammar here, I recommend reference to an up-to-date practical guide, English Grammar: The Basics by Michael McCarthy, also published by Routledge.
I have to add, however, that some of the proposed innovations in the terminology and analysis of English have been rejected as impractical – and worse – not just by journalists but by writers in general, translators and teachers, particularly of English as a second language. It remains to be seen how useful and generally accepted the ‘new’ grammar turns out to be (see Appendix 2: The ‘fronted adverbial’ muddle, p178).
The parts of speech
Traditionally, there are eight parts of speech: noun, pronoun, adjective, verb, adverb, preposition, conjunction and interjection, with the article (‘a/an’ or ‘the’) now often added to the list instead of being considered an adjective. There are various possible subdivisions: verbs can be ‘auxiliary’; pronouns can be ‘demonstrative’ and ‘possessive’. Numerals can be included as a separate category.
Article
‘The’ is the definite article; ‘a’ or ‘an’ is the indefinite article. ‘An’ replaces ‘a’ before a vowel (an owl), unless the vowel is sounded as a consonant (a use), and before a silent h (an hour).
Noun
Nouns are the names of people and things. They are either ordinary nouns called common (thing, chair) or special nouns called proper (‘George’, ‘Tuesday’). Proper nouns often take a capital letter.
Abstract common nouns refer to qualities (‘beauty’, ‘honesty’), emotions (‘anger’, ‘pity’) or states (‘friendship’, ‘childhood’).
In general nouns are singular (‘thing’, ‘man’) or plural (‘things’, ‘men’). But some nouns are the same in the singular and the plural (‘aircraft’, ‘sheep’) and some are used only in the plural (‘scissors’, ‘trousers’). Nouns that refer to collections of people and things (‘the cabinet’, ‘the team’) are known as collective nouns.
Pronoun
Pronouns stand for nouns and are often used to avoid repetition. They can be:
personal (I, you, him) possessive (mine, yours, his) reflexive/intensive (myself, yourself, himself) relative/interrogative (who, whose, whom) indefinite (anybody, none, each) demonstrative (this, that, these and those are the four demonstrative pronouns)
The noun that a pronoun stands for is called its antecedent.
Pronouns, unlike nouns, often change their form according to the role they play in a sentence: ‘I’ becomes ‘me’; ‘you’ becomes ‘yours’. This role of a noun or pronoun is called case. Following the Latin model, grammarians used to talk about such things as the nominative, dative and genitive cases. But this is needlessly complicated: the key distinction is between the subjective case (‘I’) and the objective case (‘me’).
Verb
Verbs express action or a state of being or becoming (‘doing word’ is therefore an over-simplification). They can be finite because they have a subject (‘he thinks’) or non-finite because they do not (‘to think’). The tense of a verb shows whether it refers to the past, the present or the future. Tenses are formed in two ways: either by inflecting (changing the form of) the verb (‘he thought’) or by adding an auxiliary verb (‘he will think’) or both (‘he has thought’). Verbs can be active (‘he thinks’) or passive (‘it was thought’).
Finite verbs
Mood: finite verbs can be
indicative, either statement (‘he thinks’) or question (‘does he think?’) conditional (‘I would think’) subjunctive (‘if he were to think’) imperative (‘go on, think!’)
Indicative tenses
There are three basic times (present, past, future) and three basic actions (simple, continuing, completed). Thus there are nine basic tenses:
Simple Continuing Completed
Present I see I am seeing I have seen
Past I saw I was seeing I had seen
Future I will see I will be seeing I will have seen
Three other tenses show a mixture of continuing and completed action:
Present: I have been seeing Past: I had been seeing Future: I will have been seeing
Traditional grammar distinguishes between the first person singular (‘I’), the second person singular (‘thou’), the third person singular (‘he/she’), the first person plural (‘we’), the second person plural (‘you’) and the third person plural (‘they’). But modern English has dispensed with the second person singular (‘thou’ is archaic), and in most verbs only the third person singular differs from the standard form:
I see He/she sees We see You see They see
In both future and conditional tenses ‘will’/‘would’ is now the standard form, except in certain questions. In the past, it was considered correct to use ‘shall’ after I/we for the plain future (‘We shall be late’) while ‘will’ was reserved for emphasis (‘We will catch this train’); and ‘will’ after he/she/you/they (‘He will be late’) while ‘shall’ was reserved for emphasis (‘He shall catch this train’). An example of this is the English version of Marshal Pétain’s first world war slogan They shall not pass (revived by the Republicans in the Spanish civil war).
‘Shall’ is still used after I/we in questions that make some kind of offer or suggestion (‘Shall I phone for a taxi?’), though not in straightforward ones that ask for information (‘Will we get a drink at the press launch?’).
Conditional tenses
There are two conditional tenses, the present and the past, both formed by the addition of would (‘I would think’, ‘I would have thought’).
Subjunctive tenses
The verb forms for the subjunctive mood are much the same as for the indicative. But there are two exceptions.
The third person singular, present tense, changes as follows:
‘She has faith’ becomes ‘If she have faith’. ‘He finds’ becomes ‘Should he find’.
The verb ‘to be’ changes as follows:
PRESENT
Indicative
Subjunctive (if) I am I be He/she is He/she be You are You be hey are They be
Indicative
Subjunctive (if)
I was I were He/she was He/she were
‘We were’, ‘you were’ and ‘they were’ remain unchanged.
Non-finite verbs
There are three types of non-finite verb:
1 the infinitive (see/to see)
2 the present participle or gerund (seeing)
3 the past participle (seen)
The infinitive usually, but not always, has ‘to’ before it. ‘I want to see’ and ‘I can’t see’ are both examples of the infinitive.
The participles are used to make up the basic tenses (see above).
The participles are also used as adjectives (‘a far-seeing statesman’, ‘an unseen passage’) and in phrases (‘seeing him in the street, I stopped for a chat’). Here, although the subject of ‘seeing’ is not stated, it is implied: the person doing the seeing is ‘I’.
The gerund has the same -ing form as the present participle but is a verbnoun (‘seeing is believing’). As a noun, a gerund would be expected to take the possessive (‘I was worried by his leaving early’), and this is recommended, but the informal alternative, ‘I was worried by him leaving early’, is common and accepted.
Adjective
An adjective describes a noun or pronoun.
Demonstrative adjectives (‘this’, ‘that’, ‘these’, ‘those’) identify a noun (‘this car’, ‘these potatoes’). When used without a noun they become pronouns (‘this is my car’).
Possessive adjectives (‘my’, ‘your’, ‘our’) show ownership (‘my car’).
Most other adjectives are absolute adjectives (‘final’, ‘perfect’) or adjectives of degree.
Adjectives of degree are either:
positive, used of a thing (‘hot’, ‘complicated’) comparative, used to compare one thing with another (‘hotter’, ‘more complicated’) superlative, used to compare a thing with two or more others (‘hottest’, ‘most complicated’)
Adverb
An adverb usually describes a verb, adjective or other adverb: He sees clearly [adverb describes verb]. It was a newly minted coin [adverb describes adjective]. He sees very clearly [adverb describes adverb].
Some adverbs are used to add a comment or link sentences; they are called sentence adverbs or conjunctive adverbs and are usually marked off by commas: Sadly, he died. Life is expensive. Death, however, is cheap.
Note that ‘however’ can also be used as an ordinary adverb: However good you may be at punctuation, you will still make mistakes.
Preposition
A preposition is a word that links its object with a preceding word or phrase: It’s a case of mumps. We’re going to Blackpool.
When the object of a preposition is a pronoun it must be in the objective case. Thus: of me to her for him by us with them
Conjunction
A conjunction is a word that:
1 links two similar parts of speech fit and well slowly but surely
2 links two sentences whether or not they are separated by a full stop You may come. Or you may go. You may come or you may go.
3 links main clauses with subordinate clauses and phrases I will if you will. I will go as a clown.
Interjection
An interjection is a short exclamation that is outside the main sentence. It either stands alone or is linked to the sentence by a comma:
Alas! Woe is me!
Hello, how are you?
Sentences
A sentence is traditionally described as a group of words expressing a complete thought. It has a subject, the person or thing being discussed, and a verb, expressing action or a state of being (and it may have other elements such as an object):
Subject Verb
The man sees.
Sometimes the subject is understood rather than stated: The old man lay down. And died.
In the second sentence ‘he’ is understood.
There is also a looser definition of a sentence:
… a piece of writing or speech between two full stops or equivalent pauses (New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1993)
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
There is indeed a difference of opinion amongst the Talmudic doctors, as to the nature of the sidereal influence, but all agree in the fact, as may be seen further from the opinion of R. Huna:—
“These things do not depend upon the sidereal influence of the day, but on the sidereal influence of the hour. He that is born under the influence of the sun will be a splendid man, eating and drinking of that which belongs to himself, and will reveal his secrets: if he be a thief he will not prosper. He that is born under Nogah (Venus) will be a rich and profligate man. What is the reason? Because on it the fire was created. He that is born under Kochav (Mercury) will be a man of strong memory, and wise, for Mercury is secretary to the sun. He that is born under the influence of the moon, will suffer much, building and destroying, destroying and building: eating and drinking what does not belong to him, and a keeper of his own secrets. If a thief he will prosper. He that is born under Shabthai (Saturn) will be a man whose thoughts come to nought, but some say those, that think against him, shall come to nought. He that is born under Tsedek (Jupiter) will be a righteous man. Rav Nachman bar Isaac says, righteous in the commandments.[22] He that is born under Maadim (Mars) will be a shedder of blood. Rav Achai says, either a letter of blood, or a thief, or a circumciser. Rabbah said, I was born under Mars. Abbai answered, Therefore, you are fond of punishing and killing.” (Shabbath, ibid.) In this passage the heathenism is still more apparent. It is notorious that the ancient Greek and Roman idolaters considered Venus as the patroness of profligacy, Mercury as the god of eloquence and learning, Mars as the god of war, and behold! here in the oral law you have the very same doctrine. “If a man be born
under Venus, he will be a rich and profligate man; if under Mercury, a man of strong memory and wise; if under Mars, a shedder of blood.” The habits of the mind are here also expressly attributed to the influence of the planets, and a thief has got the promise of success, if his nativity happened under the influence of the moon. What then becomes of human responsibility, and how does this doctrine agree with the words of Moses, “Behold I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing, therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live?” (Deut. xxx. 19.) It will be replied by Talmudists, that the oral law also says:—
“Israel is not under the influence of the stars.” We shall, therefore, consider that passage in its context which immediately follows:—
“Rabbi Chanina says, the influence of the stars makes wise, the influence of the stars makes rich, and Israel is under that influence. Rabbi Jochanan says, Israel is not under the influence of the stars, and Rabbi Jochanan helped his argument, for Rabbi Jochanan says, From whence is it proved that Israel is not under the influence of the stars? Because it is said, ‘Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.’ (Jer. x. 2.) The heathen but not Israel. Rav says, Israel is not under the influence of the stars, for Rabbi Judah says, Rav says, From whence is it proved that Israel is not under the influence of the stars? From that which is said, ‘And he brought him forth abroad.’ (Gen. xv. 5.) Abraham said before God, ‘Lord of the world, One born in my house is my heir.’ God replied not so, but ‘He that shall come forth out of thine own bowels.’ Abraham
replied, I have consulted my astrology, and am not fit to beget a son. God said, Go forth from thy astrology, for Israel is not under the influence of the stars.” (Shabbath, ibid.) Now this passage, if taken in the most favourable point of view, proves only that Israel is not under the influence of the stars; but this exception proves to demonstration that the oral law teaches, that all other nations are under that influence. According to this doctrine, all the Gentiles, and of course Christians among the number, are given up to unchanging and unchangeable fate. They are good and bad, rich and poor, happy and unhappy, according to the sidereal influence at their nativity, and consequently are utterly irresponsible for their actions. A Gentile thief, or murderer, or adulterer, is not so, because he yielded to temptation, or to evil dispositions, but because he happened to be born under the influence of the Moon, or of Mars, or of Venus. This is the religion of the oral law, on the most favourable view of the case, and consequently God is represented first as a partial governor, who gives constitutional advantages to one favourite nation, which He withholds from all others; and then, secondly, as an unjust judge, who punishes the Gentiles for doing what the irresistible influence of the stars compelled them to do. This doctrine is of itself sufficient to prove that the oral law is not of God, and that as a religion it stands upon a line with the heathen and Mahometan systems of fate, and is consequently infinitely below Christianity. The New Testament recognises no system of favouritism, but represents God as a just judge, “who will render to every man according to his deeds” (Rom. ii. 6); and all men as responsible for the evil which they commit. “There is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law, shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law.” (Ibid., 11, 12.)
This is a view worthy of the Divine character, whereas the astrological system of the oral law, which represents God as giving up all nations to the influence of the stars, and then punishing them for following that influence which He himself ordained, is nothing short of blasphemy, and is much more akin to heathenism than to the doctrine of Moses and the prophets. But, secondly, this passage of the Talmud contains two statements directly contradicting each other. Rabbi Chanina says, Israel is under the influence of the stars
—the others say, Israel is not under the influence of the stars; whichever statement we receive as true, the other is necessarily false, and therefore the oral law contains falsehood, and therefore is unworthy of credit. Thirdly, the story which is here given of Abraham has falsehood on the face of it, and after all does not disprove, but rather confirms the doctrine that Israel, as well as the other nations, is under the influence of the stars; for as Rashi tells us, Abraham and Sarah escaped from their sidereal destiny only by changing their names. Rashi’s words are—
“God said to Abraham, Go forth from thy astrology, for thou hast seen in the stars that thou art not to have a son. Abram is not to have a son, but Abraham is to have a son. Sarai is not to bear a child, but Sarah shall bear a child. I call you by another name, and thus the influence of the stars will be changed.” (Com. in Gen. xv. 5.)
Here it is plainly intimated, and that in the name of God himself, that Abraham and Sarah were both under the influence of the stars, and that if they had not changed their names, they never could have had a child. This was evidently Rashi’s opinion; and when we remember that the majority of the Jews in the world implicitly follow Rashi’s interpretation, we may conclude that this is the prevailing doctrine. And perhaps some of the readers of this paper may even know instances of Jews who, led by this interpretation, have actually changed their name, in the hope of bettering their luck, or even of escaping from death. But however that be, it is easy to show that the Talmud and the rabbies generally believe in the astrological influence of the heavenly bodies. In addition to the passages already cited, the Talmud says expressly—
“An eclipse of the sun is an evil sign to the nations of the world. An eclipse of the moon is an evil sign to Israel; for Israel reckons by the
moon, the nations of the world by the sun. When the eclipse happens in the east, it is an evil sign to the inhabitants of the east. When it happens in the west, it is an evil sign to the inhabitants of the west,” &c., &c. (Succah, fol. 29. col. 1.) The rabbies who have lived since, teach the same doctrine. For instance, Saadiah Gaon, speaking of the manner in which the influence of the stars is modified by the signs of the zodiac, says—
“Sometimes the course of a star is partly in a good sign and partly in a bad sign. The man born under this will first prosper and then suffer adversity. (Comment. in Sepher Jetsirah, fol. 98, col. 1.) He also explains, there, how it is possible for astrologers to foretell sickness and death; but this is enough to shew his opinion, and what he had learned from the Talmud. The writings of Aben Esra bear the same testimony. For instance, in his commentary on the ten commandments, he says—
“The fourth commandment is that respecting the Sabbath, and answers to the orb of Saturn; for the experimental philosophers say, that each one of the ministering servants has a certain day of the week in which he exhibits his strength, and he is master of the first hour in the day, and thus it is also with him who is master of the first hour in the night. They say, also, that Saturn and Mars are the two hurtful stars, and whosoever begins a work, or to walk in the way, when either of these two is in the ascendant, is sure to fall into harm. Therefore our ancients have said, that permission is given to do injury on the nights of the fourth and seventh days of the week. And
behold, thou wilt not find, in all the days of the week, a night and a day, one after the other, on which these two hurtful stars rule except on this day; therefore it is not suitable on it to engage in worldly affairs, but to devote it entirely to the fear of God.” This exposition shows that Aben Esra believed in astrology, and that the power of the stars extended to Israel as well as to the other nations, nay the power of the stars to do harm is here made the foundation of the command respecting the Sabbath-day. A man, whose mind was not thoroughly imbued with faith in astrology, could never have been led even to entertain such an opinion, when God himself has assigned another and entirely different reason for the institution of the Sabbath. But indeed it is not necessary to go to the rabbies to prove that modern Judaism teaches astrology. That common wish which one so often hears amongst the Jews, even at the present day, לזמ בוט mazzal tov, or good luck, has its origin in the doctrine of the Talmud, and shows how universally it has been received. And thus we see the influence which the oral law has had in leading away both learned and unlearned from the Word of God, and of spreading amongst them, as a tradition from Moses, what is merely one of the numerous errors of heathen idolatry. The heathen worshipped the host of heaven. The sun, and the moon, and other heavenly bodies, they considered as deities; it was, therefore, natural for them to suppose that they exercised an influence over the affairs of men. The Chaldeans were especially devoted to this doctrine, and had almost exalted it to the rank of a science. From them, probably during the Babylonish captivity, the Jaws learned this system; and though altogether idolatrous in its origin, and learned from idolaters, it was congenial to the minds of the superstitious rabbies, and was, therefore, introduced into the oral law, where it has ever since continued. The oral law has, therefore, in this respect, adopted heathen doctrine, and teaches heathenism. Every Jew who wishes his neighbour בוט לזמ, mazzal tov, uses a heathen idolatrous expression—sanctioned, indeed, by the Talmud, but utterly repugnant to the doctrine of Moses. But where will he find in the New Testament any warrant either for such a doctrine or such a wish? The New Testament is entirely free from all shadow and tincture of this heathenism. Your oral law has taught you that the course of
events depends upon the stars. Jesus of Nazareth has taught us, that the ordering of all events, even the minutest, proceeds from our Heavenly Father. He says, “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your are all numbered.” (Matt. x. 29, 30.) Jesus of Nazareth, therefore, whom you are afraid to follow, lest he should lead you after other gods, directs all his followers to the one living and true God, the Creator, Preserver, and Redeemer of all things. Those men, on the contrary, who crucified Jesus of Nazareth, and that oral law, which you prefer to Christianity, have led you away from the doctrines of Moses and the prophets to the principles of heathenism. The general doctrine, that the moral nature, the weal and wo of men, are altogether dependent upon the stars, is not Mosaic, it is heathen; and the particular details concerning the influence of Venus, Mars, and Mercury, are plainly the offspring of the worst part of heathen mythology. If, then, Jews believe in this Talmudic astrology, they approach very nearly to heathenism, and such has been the case with the majority and the most learned of the nation for the last eighteen hundred years. If from the unavoidable influence of Christian knowledge, they now reject this portion of the oral law, they declare that all their most learned rabbies have been in gross error, and that the oral law, which led them astray, is not from God, but, on the contrary, in one of its most important features, a mere copy of idolatrous heathenism.
No. XXIV. AMULETS.
In magic and astrology we have discovered two features common to idolatrous heathenism, and to the religion of the oral law. We have seen that it pervades the Talmud and the writings of the subsequent rabbies, and that it has tinctured the language of every-day life. It occurs, therefore, as might be expected, incidentally, when the oral law treats of other things; and we are induced to notice one passage of this kind, not only because it proves that faith in astrology is an essential element in the religion of the oral law, but because it sets before us another feature of resemblance to heathenism. In treating of the virtues of amulets, and of the tests, whereby to try them and those that write, the following passage occurs—
“Rav Papa says, I am certain in the case of three amulets for three men; where three copies of one amulet have cured three times, then both the writer and the amulet are approved. In the case of three amulets for three men, where each performs only one cure, then the writer is approved, the amulet is not approved. In the case of one amulet for three men, then the amulet is approved, the writer is not approved. But Rav Papa asks, What is to be the decision when there are three amulets for one man? The amulet is certainly not approved, the writer may or may not be. Shall we say that he cured
him? Or was it perhaps the influence of the stars, belonging to that man, that had an affinity for that which was written? That must remain undecided.” (Shabbath, fol. 61, col. 2.) Here we have the influence of the stars again, and that not in the case of the heathen, but in the case of Israelites. The whole passage refers to none but Israelites. The question, from which this digression about amulets arose, was whether it is lawful to wear amulets on the Sabbath-day, a question concerning the Jews, and them only. In this question, then, we find the doctrine of sidereal influence mixed up, or rather so certainly pre-supposed as to prevent the solution of a doubt. A case is supposed where a man has been cured by the help of three amulets, and thence arises a doubt as to whether the maker may be considered as an approved writer of amulets; and upon this case R. Papa does not venture to decide, because it is possible that the cure may be owing to the influence of the stars. How can there be a stronger proof of faith in the power of the stars over Israelites as well as over other persons?
This passage proves incontrovertibly that the heathen notion of astrology is inseparably interwoven with the religious system of the oral law, but it also presents to our consideration another circumstance equally startling, and that is, that the oral law sanctions the use of amulets or charms, as a cure for, or defence against, sickness and other evils. What, is it possible, that the Jews who think that their religion is the true religion revealed by God to Moses, and whose chief objection to Christianity is the fear lest it should lead them to strange gods, is it possible that this people should still entertain the old heathen notion concerning amulets? Yes, whilst the followers of Jesus of Nazareth have learned from him to renounce this superstitious and wicked practice, the Jews, taught by those who rejected and crucified him, still believe in the oral law which teaches the manner of making and using charms. But perhaps some one will say, it occurs only in the Gemara, but not in the Mishna. This is at all times but a poor apology for the oral law, or rather an open confession that the greatest part of that law is indefensible, but it will not serve here. The doctrine of amulets proceeds from the Mishna, which says,—
“It is not lawful to go forth on the Sabbath-day with an amulet, unless it be from an approved person.” The Gemara then takes up this commandment, and comments thus upon it,—
“Rav Papa says, do not think that it is necessary that both the man and the amulet must be approved; it is enough if the man be approved, even though the amulet be not approved. The proof is, that the Mishna says, ‘Unless the amulet be from an approved person,’ but does not say, ‘Unless the amulet be approved,’ from which it is plain. Our rabbies have taught thus, What is an approved amulet? Any amulet that has effected a cure, and done so twice or thrice. The doctrine holds good, whether the amulet be a written one, or made of roots—whether the man be dangerously ill or not—not only if he be epileptic, but that he may not become epileptic.”
(Shabbath, fol. 61, col. 1.) From this it appears that there are two sorts of amulets, one containing some written words, the other made of roots of various kinds, and it is equally plain that the object of wearing them was either to prevent sickness or to effect a cure. On the Sabbath those only are lawful, which have been manufactured by a man, who has already established his character for making efficacious amulets, or which have been already tried and proved to be so. This is the doctrine of the Talmud, and let every Jew remember that this doctrine is not extracted from the legendary part, but from those laws which are binding upon the consciences of all who acknowledge an oral law And this is not any private opinion of our own, as may be seen by referring to any compilation where the laws are collected, as for instance the Jad Hachazakah, where this law is thus expressed:—
“It is lawful to go out with an approved amulet. What is an approved amulet? One that has cured three persons, or has been made by a man who has cured three persons with other amulets.” (Hilchoth Shabbath, c. xix. 14.) The Arbah Turim enters more at length into the subject, thus—
“It is not lawful to go out in an amulet, which is not approved, but if it be approved, it is lawful. Whether it be the man or the amulet, which is approved, makes no difference; for instance, if a man have written one and the same charm in three copies, and all three have affected a cure, the man is approved with respect to that charm every time that he writes it, but not with respect to other charms; neither is the amulet approved if written by another. There is also no difference in the case, when the amulet is approved but the man not so; for instance, if a man write one charm, and only one copy, and has with it effected a cure three times, then that copy is approved for every man. A third case is, when both the man and the amulet are approved; for instance, if a man write one charm in three copies, and each has been of use to three men or to one man three times, then the man is approved with respect to this charm in every copy which he may write, and these copies are considered as approved for the use of all men. But if he have written three different amulets for one man, and have cured him three times, then neither the man nor the amulet is approved. Further, it is lawful to go out with an approved amulet, whether it be a writing or one made of roots, and whether the man be dangerously ill or not. Neither is it necessary that he should
have been already epileptic, and now makes use of it for a cure. On the contrary, if he be of an epileptic family, and wear it as a preventive, it is lawful.” (Orach Chaiim. sec. 301.) There can be no mistake here. This is Jewish law binding upon all who acknowledge tradition. Neither is it a doubtful or passing notice; on the contrary, the different cases are all enumerated, and every particular specified. The oral law here gives the most unqualified sanction to the use of amulets or charms, and that even on the Sabbath-day. That such charms are near akin to magic or witchcraft is plain from the nature and purpose of the manufacture, and from the undisguised use of the word שחל “charms;” but there is a passage in Rashi’s commentary on another Talmudic treatise, which puts this beyond all doubt; we therefore give both the text and the commentary—
“Our rabbies have handed down the tradition that Hillel the elder had eighty disciples, of whom thirty were as worthy as Moses our master to have the Shechinah resting upon them. Thirty others were as worthy as Joshua the son of Nun that for them the sun should stand still. Twenty were in the middle rank, of whom the greatest was Jonathan the son of Uziel; and the least of all was Rabbi Johanan ben Zachai. Of this last-named rabbi it is said, that he did not leave unstudied the Bible or the Mishna, Gemara, the constitutions, the Agadoth, the niceties of the law and the Scribes, the argument, a fortiori, and from similar premises, the theory of the change of the moon, Gematria, the parables taken from grapes and from foxes, the language of demons, the language of palm-trees, and the language of the ministering angels,” &c. (Bava Bathra, fol. 134, col. 1.) This was pretty well, considering that he was the least of the eighty; what then must have been the knowledge of the others? This tradition alone, from its gross exaggeration, would be sufficient to mark the
character of the rabbies as false witnesses. It is plainly a fable, such as one might expect in the “Arabian Nights’ Entertainments,” but not in a law that professes to have come from God. It is another proof that the account of the oral law is a mere fiction. But our object in quoting the passage here, is to point out its connexion with charms and amulets. It tells us, that this rabbi understood the language of the ministering angels? Now what use was this? Rashi tells us in his commentary, םעיבשהל to conjure or to adjure them: that is, to compel them to serve him, when he adjured them; that is, by their means to act the part of a conjuror It may perhaps be said, these were the good angels, with whom a holy man might hold converse, but we are also told that he understood “the language of demons.” What was the object of this? Rashi answers again—
“For the purpose of adjuring them: and hence it follows that amulets may be made in order to effect cures.” From this it appears that the Talmud allows a man to have converse with evil spirits, and that this precedent establishes the lawfulness of amulets. And this is the religion of the oral law, these the doctrines and practices of the men who rejected Jesus of Nazareth! Here is real heathenism, not one shade of which appears in the New Testament. Oh! how different is this from the doctrine of Moses and the prophets. The oral law sends sick men to seek help in amulets and charms, but not to the God of Israel. Now what difference is there between this and the conduct of Ahaziah, when he fell down through the lattice in his upper chamber in Samaria, and was sick? “He sent messengers, and said unto them, Go inquire of Beelzebub the god of Ekron, whether I shall recover of this disease. But the angel of the Lord said to Elijah the Tishbite, Arise, go up to meet the messengers of the King of Samaria, and say unto them, Is it not because there is not a God in Israel, that ye go to inquire of Beelzebub, the god of Ekron?” (2 Kings i. 2, 3.) And so it may still be said to Israel, Is it not because there is not a God in Israel, that ye go to amulets and charms in order to get cured of your diseases? Moses points to God as the great physician; he says, “Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep and do them, that the Lord
thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers. And the Lord will take away from thee all sickness.” (Deut. vi. 12-15.) God himself says— ׃ ךאפור ׳ה ינא
“I am the Lord that healeth thee.” (Exod. xv. 26.) But the oral law leads men away from God, and tells them to go to an approved man and to get an approved amulet, and for this allows to learn the language of demons, and to compel them by adjuration to be subservient. Where, in all the Old Testament, is there any thing like this? When the widow’s son was sick, Elijah did not give her an amulet to make him well, and yet, if there were such things, it might be supposed that he knew of them, and knew how to make them; in short, that he was an approved man and could make an approved amulet; but Elijah’s trust was not in such heathen nonsense, but in the God of Israel. Before Him he prostrated himself and said, “O Lord my God, I pray thee, let this child’s soul come into him again.” (1 Kings xvii. 22.) When Hezekiah was sick, we read not that he sent for an approved amulet, but that “He turned his face towards the wall, and prayed unto the Lord.” Not charms, but faith and prayer, are the amulets of the Old Testament, and also of the New. The Lord Jesus Christ wrought many miracles of healing, and multitudes of sick people applied to him for relief, but he never directed them to amulets in order to attain it. His direction is, “Be not afraid, only believe.” (Mark v. 36.) His disciples also wrought great miracles on the sick, but not by amulets. Their confession is “His name, through faith in his name, hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.” (Acts iii. 16.) And their command is, not to wear amulets, but to pray “Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the Church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain, and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her
fruit.” (James v 13-18.) This is the doctrine of the New Testament, exactly agreeing with that of Moses and the prophets, so that you need not fear that Christianity will lead you to heathenism: on the contrary, it will lead you back from the heathenism of magic and astrology, and amulets, to the God of Israel.
But there is another feature in this doctrine concerning amulets, which must not be overlooked, and that is that the manufacture of amulets may be made a mere trade for collecting the money of the credulous. If a man get a reputation as an approved manufacturer, the believers in the oral law will naturally apply to him in case of sickness, or other circumstances, where amulets are of service, and of course the remedy is not to be had for nothing. We have known and heard of such things both in the west and in the east. And thus the poor Israelites are led away from the God of Israel, and induced, as the prophet says, “To spend their money for that which is not bread, and their labour for that which satisfieth not.” But what a testimony does this whole doctrine furnish to the conduct and the doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth? His great endeavour was to show the apostacy of the oral law, and to lead the people back from tradition to the Holy Scriptures. Was he right or was he wrong? Which is the religion, of the oral law or of the New Testament, most agreeable to the religion revealed to Moses and the prophets. Is the practice of magic a Mosaic doctrine? Is permission to hold converse with evil demons a Mosaic doctrine? Is astrology a Mosaic doctrine? Is the manufacture of amulets and charms a Mosaic doctrine? No; they are all directly opposed to the doctrine and commandments of Moses, and the practice of all the holy men of old. Are these things doctrines of the oral law? Yes. Are they the doctrines of the New Testament? No. Christians are taught to abstain from all such things. Then in this, at least, Christianity is more like Mosaism. How long will the Jews suffer themselves to be thus deluded and imposed upon? Many are perhaps ignorant of the details of that system which they profess, but such ignorance is highly culpable. If men profess a religion they ought to know what it is, and what are its doctrines, and what the practices which it prescribes. Modern Judaism teaches, as the truth of God, all these heathenish notions and practices; it is time, then, for the Jews to inquire whether this be the true religion in
which they have continued for so many centuries, and if not, to stand in the ways and ask for the old paths. It is a vain thing for a few individuals of the nation to attempt to deny that these superstitions are an essential portion of modern Judaism. As long as the oral law is acknowledged to be of Divine authority, that oral law must itself be taken as the witness for its own doctrines, and the standard of the modern Jewish religion. There is no possible middle course: either Jews must altogether and publicly renounce the Talmud as false, superstitions, and heathenish, or they must be content to be regarded in one of two characters, either as its faithful disciples, who believe all it says, or as timid men-pleasers, who are afraid to confess the truth of God, or to protest against the errors of man, lest they should suffer some worldly loss or inconvenience. But is it possible that cowards, in the cause of God, should be found amongst the people of Gideon, who stood boldly against the idolatry of a whole city, and overthrew the altar of Baal, or amongst the offspring of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who dared a fiery furnace, or amidst the countrymen of Daniel who trembled not at the view of the lion’s den? No, we will rather believe that all the Jews are still bigoted Talmudists, and that when they cease to be, they will come forward with the spirit of their fathers and the strength of their God to vindicate the truth.
No. XXV. CHARMS.
Both Jew and Gentile will agree that true religion is the fear of the Lord, but the difficulty is how are we to know it, and what are the marks that will help us to distinguish the true from the false? The Word of God gives many, of which at present we select this one:—
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” (Psalm cxi. 10.)
True religion, as the Bible teaches, does not only better the heart, but also improves the understanding; whereas false religion not only corrupts, but also makes its votaries foolish. This is the uniform representation of the Bible, and thus we read of true religion, “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.” (Psalm xix. 7.) And again, the wisest of men says, “Then shalt thou understand righteousness, judgment, and equity; yea, every good path. When wisdom entereth into thine heart, and knowledge is pleasant to thy soul, discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep thee.” (Prov. ii. 9-11.)
The votaries of false religion are, on the contrary, described as devoid of all wisdom. “They are altogether brutish and foolish; the stock is a doctrine of vanities.” (Jer. x. 8.) And again, “None considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also, I have baked bread on the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh and eaten it; and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? Shall I fall down to the stock of a tree? He feedeth on ashes; a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?” (Isaiah xliv. 19, 20.) According to
these passages of Scripture, wisdom is a test of true religion, and folly of a false one, let us then apply this test to the religion of the oral law, does it commend itself to the understanding by its wisdom, and the wisdom of its teachers? It is true, that it speaks well of itself, and calls all its doctors םימכח “Wise men,” but the chapter on amulets, quite fresh in the memory of our readers, excites some doubts upon the subject, though of these we consider only the theory. The histories, which the Talmud gives of the Rabbinical practice with regard to such charms, lead to the inevitable conclusion that wisdom is not one of the characteristics of the oral law Take for example the following direction to stop a bleeding at the nose:—
“For a bleeding at the nose, let a man be brought who is a priest, and whose name is Levi, and let him write the word Levi backwards. If this cannot be done, get a layman, and let him write the following words backwards:—‘Ana pipi Shila bar Sumki;’[23] or let him write these words, ‘Taam dli bemi keseph, taam li bemi paggan;’[24] or let him take a root of grass, and the cord of an old bed, and paper and saffron, and the red part of the inside of a palm tree, and let him burn them together, and let him take some wool, and twist two threads, and let him dip them in vinegar, and then roll them in the ashes, and put them into his nose. Or let him look out for a small stream of water that flows from east to west, and let him go and stand with one leg on each side of it, and let him take with his right hand some mud from under his left foot, and with his left hand from under his right foot, and let him twist two threads of wool, and dip them in the mud, and put them into his nostrils. Or let him be placed under a spout,
and let water be brought and poured upon him, and let them say, ‘As this water ceases to flow, so let the blood of M., the son of the woman N., also cease.’” (Gittin, fol. 69, col. 1.) Now we ask any Jew of common sense, whether this passage savours most of wisdom or folly? Vinegar and water may be very useful in such a case, or even mud, if used in sufficient quantity, might stop up the nose, and therefore stop the bleeding too, but what manner of benefit can proceed from the word Levi written backwards, or from those words which Rashi pronounces to be magical? Why is the mud of water flowing from east to west more efficacious, and why is it to be taken with the right hand from under the left foot, and with the left hand from under the right foot? Plainly because the authors of this passage thought there was some charm or magic power, and their minds were so overpowered by superstition, as to lead them to disregard the plain words of Moses forbidding all magic. It cannot be pretended that this is a rare case, the Talmud abounds in such remedies, all equally wise. For instance, take the following mode of treatment for the scratch or bite of a mad dog:—
“The rabbies have handed down the tradition, that there are five things to be observed of a mad dog: his mouth is open, his saliva flows, his ears hang down, his tail is between his legs, and he goes by the sides of the ways. Some say also, that he barks, but his voice
is not heard. What is the cause of his madness? Rav says, it proceeds from this, that the witches are making their sport with him. Samuel says, it is an evil spirit that rests upon him. What is the difference? The difference is this, that in the latter case he is to be killed by some missile weapon. The tradition[25] agrees with Samuel, for it says, In killing him no other mode is to be used but the casting of some missile weapon. If a mad dog scratch any one, he is in danger; but if he bite him he will die. In case of a scratch there is danger; what then is the remedy? Let the man cast off his clothes and run away Rav Huna, the son of Rav Joshua, was once scratched in the street by one of them; he immediately cast off his clothes and ran away. He also says, I fulfilled in myself those words, ‘Wisdom giveth life to them that have it.’ (Eccles. vii. 12.) In case of a bite, the man will die; what then is the remedy? Abai says, He must take the skin of a male adder, and write upon it these words, ‘I, M., the son of the woman N., upon the skin of a male adder, I write against thee, Kanti, Kanti, Klirus.’ Some say, ‘Kandi, Kandi, Klurus, Jah, Jah, Lord of Hosts, Amen, Amen, Selah.’ Let him also cast off his clothes, and bury them in the grave-yard for twelve months of the year; then let him take them up and burn them in an oven, and let him scatter the ashes at the parting of the roads. But during these twelve months of the year, when he drinks water, let him drink out of nothing but a brass tube, lest he should see the phantom-form of the demon and be endangered. This was tried by Abba, the son of Martha, who is the same as Abba, the son of Manjumi. His mother made a golden tube for him.” (Joma, fol. 83, col. 1.) This is a very plain case of the use of an amulet and of magic, but whether it be a proof of profound wisdom we leave to the judgment of the reader. What good can the poor man get from certain words written on the skin of a male adder? or from first burying and then burning his clothes, and scattering the ashes on the cross-roads? It cannot be pretended that this is medical treatment, and still less that it is the treatment commanded by the Word of God. If it had pleased God to command all this, we should not only submit, but gladly recommend this recipe in every similar case. To God Almighty no man can prescribe. He chooses what means he pleases, and may do so because his omnipotence can render them effectual. He healed the
