disunited a view, that the sense and connection are nearly lost. The sentence is restored to its proper unity by constructing it thus; "having come to anchor, I was put on shore, where I was saluted by all my friends, who received me with the greatest kindness."

The second rule is, never crowd into one sentence ideas,which have so little connection, that they might well be divided into two or more Violation of this rule never fails to

sentences.

66

The

displease a reader. Its effect indeed is so disgusting, that of the two it is the safest extreme, to err rather by too many short sentences, than by one, that is overloaded and confused following sentence from a translation of Plutarch will justify this opinion: "Their march," says the author, speaking of the Greeks, was through an uncultivated country, whose savage inhabitants fared hardly, having no other riches, than a breed of lean sheep, whose flesh was rank and unsavory, by reason of their continual feeding upon sea flesh." Here the subject is repeatedly changed. The march of the Greeks, the description of the inhabitants, through whose country they passed, the account of their sheep, and the reason of their sheep being disagreeable food,make a jumble of objects, slightly related to each other, which the reader cannot without considerable difficulty comprehend in one view.

The third rule for preserving the unity of a sentence is, keep clear of parentheses in the middle of it. These may on some occasions have a spirited appearance, as prompted by a certain vivacity of thought, which can glance happily aside, as it is going along. But in gen

eral their effect is extremely bad; being a perplexed method of disposing of some thought, which a writer has not art enough to introduce in its proper place. It is needless to produce any instances, as they occur so frequently among incorrect writers

The fourth rule for the unity of a sentence is, bring it to a full and perfect close. It needs not to be observed, that an unfinished sentence is no sentence with respect to grammar. But sentences often occur, which are more than finished. When we have arrived at what we expected to be the conclusion; when we are come to the word, on which the mind is naturally led to rest; unexpectedly some circumstance is added, which ought to have been omitted, or disposed of elsewhere. Thus, for instance, in the following sentence from Sir William Temple, the adjection to the sentence is entirely foreign to it. Speaking of Burnet's Theory of the Earth, and Fontenelle's Plurality of Worlds; "The first," says he, "could not end his learned treatise without a panegyric of modern learning in comparison of the ancient; and the other falls so grossly into the censure of the old poetry, and preference of the new, that I could not read either of these strains without some indignation; which no quality among men is so apt to raise in me,as self sufficiency." The word "indignation" concludes the sentence; for the last member is added after the proper close.

STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES.

То

WE now proceed to the third quality of a correct sentence, which we termed strength. By this is meant such a disposition of the several words and members, as will exhibit the sense to the best advantage; as will render the impres. sion, which the period is intended to make,most full and complete; and give every word and every member its due weight and force. the production of this effect, perspicuity and unity are absolutely necessary; but more is requisite. For a sentence may be clear; it may also be compact, or have the requisite unity; and yet, by some unfavourable circumstance in the structure, it may fail in that strength or liveliness of impression, which a more happy collocation would produce.

The first rule for promoting the strength of a sentence is, take from it all redundant words. Whatever can be easily supplied in the mind, is better omitted in the expression; thus, "content with deserving a triumph, he refused the honour of it," is better than " being content with deserving a triumph, he refused the honour of it." It is one of the most useful exercises on reviewing what we have written, to contract that circuitous mode of expression, and to cut off those useless excrescences, which are usually found in a first draught. But we must be cautious of pruning so closely as to give a hardness and dryness to the style. Some leaves must be left to shelter and adorn the fruit.

As sentences should be cleared of superfluous words, so also of superfluous members. Opposed to this, is the fault we frequently meet, the last member of a period being only a repetition of the former in different dress. For example, speaking of beauty, "the very first discovery of it," says Addison, "strikes the mind with inward joy, and spreads delight through all its faculties." In this instance, scarcely any thing is added by the second member of the sentence to what was expressed in the first. Though the flowing style of Addison may palliate such negligence; yet it is generally true, that language, divested of this prolixity, is more strong and beautiful.

The second rule for promoting the strength of a sentence is, pay particular attention to the use of copulatives, relatives, and particles, employed for transition and connection. Some ohservations on this subject, which appear useful, shall be mentioned.

What is termed splitting of particles, or separating a preposition from the noun, which it governs, is ever to be avoided. For example,

though virtue borrows no assistance from, yet it may often be accompanied by,the advantages of fortune." In such instances we suffer pain from the violent separation of two things, which by nature are closely united.

The strength of a sentence is much injured by an unnecessary multiplication of relative and demonstrative particles. If a writer say, "there is nothing which disgusts me sooner, than the empty pomp of language; he expresses himself less forcibly, than if he had said, "nothing

disgusts me sooner, than the empty pomp of language." The former mode of expression in the introduction of a subject, or in laying down a proposition, to which particular attention is demanded, is very proper; but in ordinary discourses the latter is far preferable.

With regard to the relative we shall only observe, that in conversation and epistolary writing it may be omited; but in compositions of a serious or dignified kind, it should constantly be inserted.

On the copulative particle and, which occurs so often, several observations are to be made. It is evident, that an unnecessary repetition of it enfeebles style. By omitting it we often make a closer connection,a quicker succession of objects, than when it is inserted between them. "Veni, vidi, vici," expresses with more spirit the rapidity of conquest,than if connecting particles had been used. When, however, we wish to prevent a quick transition from one object to another; and when enumerating objects which we wish to appear as distinct from each other as possible; copulatives may be multiplied with peculiar advantage. Thus Lord Bolingbroke says with propriety," such a man might fall a victim to power; but truth, and reason, and liberty, would fall with him."

The third rule for promoting the strength of a sentence is, dispose of the principal word or words in that part of the sentence, where they will make the most striking impression. Perspicuity ought first to be studied; and the nature of our language allows no great liberty of collocation. In general, the important words