1

Thus, for instance, I was much moved by the eloquent attack on Christianity as a thing of inhuman gloom; for I thought (and still think) sincere pessimism the unpardonable sin. Insincere pessimism is a social accomplishment, rather agreeable than otherwise; and fortunately nearly all pessimism is insincere. But if Christianity was, as these people said, a thing purely pessimistic and opposed to life, then I was quite prepared to blow up St. Paul's Cathedral.

I am having problem fully understand the first sentence of the above due to its complicated structure. I've posted next few sentences, so you can access the context of this writing (year 1908) by G. K. Chesterton.

  1. What is the function of "as" here? Is "a thing of inhuman gloom" referring to "eloquent attack" or what?
  2. Mustn't be some preposition or alike before "the unpardonable sin"? Is "sincere pessimism" toward "the unpardonable sin" or is it "the unpardonable sin" itself?
Improve this question
2
  • 1
    Grammatically, the function of "as" is head of the PP "as a thing of inhuman gloom". "The unpardonable sin" is predicative complement of "sincere pessimism", where there is ellipsis of copular "be".
    – BillJ
    Commented Oct 24, 2023 at 12:07
  • 1
    Incidentally, there is nothing unusual about the copula being omitted.
    – BillJ
    Commented Oct 24, 2023 at 14:39

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
7

Evidently Chesterton had heard some people attack Christianity by describing it as a thing of inhuman gloom. The bolded words could be replaced with because they considered it or similar.

Chesterton himself thought sincere pessimism to be the unpardonable sin (i.e. he thought that it was a sin).

We don't use this kind of elision so much nowadays - we say "I thought he was stupid" rather than "I thought him stupid" - but it's perfectly valid English.

Improve this answer
1
  • This could be analysed as two different deletions: << I was much moved by the eloquent attack on Christianity as being a thing of inhuman gloom >> (though your paraphrase is nowadays far more idiomatic ... perhaps 'branding it' is closer) // and to-be–deletion, as you say. //// 'Think X to be Y' was once idiomatic, synonymous with today's 'think that X is Y', whether Y shows identity ('think Jesus to be God the Son') or attribute ('think Paul to be brave'). I doubt that the identifying type was (or is, where it occasionally still appears) deleted as often as the attributive.
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Commented Oct 24, 2023 at 10:09
0

as can introduce a basis or reason:

The zoning board rejected the application as incomplete.

The referee disallowed the goal as a hand-ball.

The plaintiffs accepted $100,000 as satisfactory.

As BillJ remarks in a comment above, those sentences could be stated with BE, which is elided in the examples above and in the original sentence:

The zoning board rejected the application as [being] incomplete.

The referee disallowed the goal as [being] a hand-ball.

The plaintiffs accepted $100,000 as [being] satisfactory.

Christianity was attacked on the (alleged) basis that it was "a thing of inhuman gloom".

Improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.