not well avoid employing, needs to be explained by one that is clearer. The other is, when the language of the emotions is exhibited. Emotion naturally dwells on its object: and when the reader also feels interested, repetition and synonymy have frequently an agreeable effect.

The following passage, taken from Addison, who delighted in a full and flowing style, may, by some persons, be deemed not very exceptionable. "But there is nothing that makes its way more directly to the soul than beauty, which immediately diffuses a secret satisfaction and complacency through the imagination, and gives a finishing to any thing that is great or uncommon. The very first discovery of it strikes the mind with inward joy, and spreads a cheerfulness and delight through all its faculties." Some degree of verbosity may be discovered in these sentences, as phrases are repeated which seem little more than the echo of one another; such as-diffusing satisfaction and compla cency through the imagination-striking the mind with inward joy-spreading cheerfulness and delight through all its faculties. But, perhaps, some redundancy is more allowable on such lively subjects than it would be on other occasions.

After removing superfluities, the second rule for promoting the strength of a sentence, is, to attend particularly to the use of copulatives, relatives, and all the particles employed for transition and connexion.

These little words, but, and, or, which, whose, where, then, therefore, because, &c. are frequently the most important words of any; they are the joints or hinges upon which all sentences turn; and, of course, much of their strength must depend upon such particles. The varieties in using them are, indeed, so many, that no particular system of rules respecting them can be given. Some observations, tending to illustrate the rule, may, however, be mentioned.

What is called splitting particles, or separating a preposition from the noun which it governs, is to be avoided. As if I should say, "Though virtue bor

rows no assistance from, yet it may often be accompanied by, the advantages of fortune." Here we are put to a stand in thought, being obliged to rest a little on the preposition by itself, which, at the same time, carries no significancy, till it is joined to its proper substantive.

Some writers needlessly multiply demonstrative and relative particles by the frequent use of such phraseology as this: "There is nothing which disgusts us sooner than the empty pomp of language." In introducing a subject or laying down a proposition, to which we demand particular attention, this sort of style is very proper; but, on common occasions, it is better to express ourselves more simply and briefly: "Nothing disgusts us sooner than the empty pomp of language.'

37

Other writers make a practice of omitting the rela tive where they think the meaning can be understood without it: as, "The man I love ;""The dominions we possessed, and the conquests we made." But though this elliptical style is intelligible, and is allowable in conversation and epistolary writing, yet in all writings of a serious and dignified kind, it ought to be avoided. There, the relative should always be inserted in its proper place and the construction filled up. "The man whom I love." "The dominions which we possessed, and the conquests which we made."

With regard to the copulative particle and, which oc curs so frequently in all kinds of composition, several observations are to be made. First, it is evident, that the unnecessary repetition of it enfeebles style. The following sentence from Sir William Temple will serve for an instance. He is speaking of the refinement of the French language: "The academy set up by Cardinal Richelieu, to amuse the wits of that age and country, and divert them from raking into his politics and ministry, brought this into vogue; and the French wits have, for this last age, been wholly turned to the refinement of their style and language; and, indeed, with such success that it can hardly be equalled, and runs equally

through their verse and their prose." Here are no fewer than eight ands in one sentence. Some writers often make their sentences drag in this manner, by a careless multiplication of copulatives.

But, in the next place, it is worthy of observation, that though the natural use of the conjunction and, is to join objects together, yet, in fact, by dropping the conjunction we often mark a closer connection, a quicker succession of objects, than when it is inserted between them. "I came, I saw, I conquered," expresses with more force the rapidity and quick succession of conquest, than if connecting particles had been used.

On the other hand, when we seek to prevent a quick transition from one object to another, when we are making some enumeration, in which we wish that the objects should appear as distinct from each other as possible, and that the mind should rest, for a moment, on each object by itself, copulatives may be multiplied with peculiar advantage. As when an author says, "Such a man might fall a victim to power; but truth, and reason, and liberty, would fall with him." Observe in the following enumeration made by the Apostle Paul, what additional weight and distinctness are given to each particular, by the repetition of a conjunction: "I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God."

The words designed to mark the transition from one sentence to another, and the connexion between sentences, are sometimes very incorrect, and perform their office in an imperfect and obscure manner. The following is an example of this kind of inaccuracy. "By greatness, I do not mean the bulk of any single object only, but the largeness of a whole view. Such are the prospects of an open champaign country, a vast uncultivated desert," &c. The word such signifies of that nature or quality, which necessarily presupposes some adjective or word descriptive of a quality going before, ta

which it refers. But, in the foregoing sentence, there is no such adjective. The author had spoken of greatness in the abstract only; and, therefore, such has no distinct antecedent to which we can refer it. The sentence would have been introduced with more propriety, by saying, To this class belong, or under this head are ranged the prospects, &c.

As connective particles are the hinges, tacks, and pins, by which the words in the same clause, the clauses in the same member, the members in the same sentence, and even the sentences in the same discourse, are united together, and their relations suggested, so they should not be either too frequently repeated, awkwardly exposed to view, or made up of polysyllables, when shorter words would as well convey the meaning. Notwithstanding that, insomuch that, forasmuch as, furthermore, &c. are tedious words which tend to overload and perplex a

sentence.

We shall conclude this head with two remarks on the subject of inserting or omitting the conjunctions. The first is, that the lative conjunctions, the causal and the disjunctive, when they suit the sense, can more rarely be dispensed with than the copulative. The second is, that the omission of copulatives always succeeds best, when the connexion of the thoughts is either very close, or very distant. It is mostly in the intermediate cases that the conjunction is deemed necessary. When the connexion in thought is very distant, the copulative appears absurd; and when very close, superfluous.

The third rule for promoting the strength of a sen tence, is, to dispose of the capital word, or words, so that they may make the greatest impression.

That there are, in every sentence, such capital worde on which the meaning principally rests, every one must see; and that these words should possess a conspicuous and distinguished place, is equally plain. For the most part, with us, the important words are placed in the begineing of the sentence. So in the following passages:

"Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have, give I unto thee," &c. "Your fathers, where are they? and the prophets, do they live forever?"

Sometimes, however, when we intend to give weight to a sentence, it is of advantage to suspend the meaning for a little, and then bring it out full at the close. "Thus," says an author, " on whatever side we contemplate this ancient writer, what principally strikes us, is his wonderful invention.”.

To accomplish this end, the placing of capital words in a conspicuous part of the sentence, the natural order of our language must sometimes be inverted. According to this natural order, the nominative has the first place, the verb the second, and the objective, if it be an active verb that is employed, has the third. Circumstances follow the nominative, the verb or the objective, as they happen to belong to any of them. "Diana of the Ephesians is great," is the natural order of the sentence. But its strength is increased by inversion, thus: "Great is Diana of the Ephesians." "I profess, in the sincerity of my heart," &c. is the natural order of a circumstance. Inverted thus: "In the sincerity of my heart, I profess," &c.

Some authors greatly invert the natural order of sentences; others write mostly in a natural style. Each method has its advantages. The inverted possesses strength, dignity, and variety: the other, more nature, ease, and simplicity. We shall give an instance of each method, taken from writers of considerable eminence. The first is of the inverted order. The author is speak ing of the misery of vice. "This, as to the complete immoral state, is, what of their own accord, men readily remark. Where there is this absolute degeneracy, this total apostacy from all candour, truth, or equity, there are few who do not see and acknowledge the misery ich is consequent. Seldom is the case misconstrued when at worst. The misfortune is, that we look not on this depravity, nor consider how it stands in less degrees. As if, to be absolutely immoral, were, indeed, the greatest misery; but to be so in a little degree, should be no