Is "as (adjective) as (adjective)" acceptable usage?
For idiosyncratic reasons of euphony and metre, I want to write (something like) "She wore round her neck many gems, as beautiful as rare." I feel in my bones that this formulation, "... as (adjective) as (adjective)," is acceptable (if decidedly dated, poetic, or literary), but cannot find any corroboration in, for example, the OED. (I gazed glassily at the large entry for "as, adv. and conj.", for a while yesterday.) I did find some support by googling a few sample phrases, which garnered a very few hits, such as: "Yes, but where / True nature links a friendly pair, / The blessing is as rich as rare." "It is an extremely beautiful plant, and as rare as beautiful, being only found in the best collections." "Animals are given voices, inanimate objects legs, and the world is peopled with beings as strange as rare." I know that the more idiomatic forms of these would be "as rich as it is rare," "as rare as it is beautiful," "as strange as they are rare." So a corollary to my question is: Is the form "as (adjective) as (adjective)" implying or eliding the fuller "as (adjective) as [it is/they are/etc.] (adjective)"? My main concern, always, is not to give the reader miscues. When one reads "as beautiful as," one probably expects a noun or noun phrase to follow: "as beautiful as a sunset," e.g. This is so common, that I worry that a reader might even assume that "rare," in my sentence, is the first part of such a noun phrase, e.g., "[gems] as beautiful as rare flowers." But, because the period immediately follows "rare," indeed is probably grouped by the eye with it, any stumbling or cognitive dissonance should probably be minimal. p.s. If you know any examples of "as (adjective) as (adjective)" in canonical literature, I'd sure like to hear them.