authors. When again those scattered materials have been brought into harmonious and orderly arrangement, under the hand of the architect and builder, when they stand before us, not a confused medley of rubbish, but a compacted and commodious house for the dwelling of man, in which every particle of sand and lime, every brick and stone, every piece of wood and iron has its place, and serves one general design,— we have a picture of the perfect Period, as it comes from the hand of the master-builder.

Danger in Long Periods.—It requires special skill on the part of a writer to complete one of these complex sentences, without some sacrifice of unity. It is also a hazardous experiment upon the patience of the reader, to expect him to follow out such a sex tence to its completion, without some flagging of the attention. A writer who deals much in these long, complex sentences, is apt to become heavy, however faultless may be his periods. Often such sentences may be resolved into two or three independent sentences, greatly to the relief of the reader.

"The ladders were now applied, and mounted by several men, which the monkey observing, and finding himself almost encompassed, and not being able to make speed enough with his three legs, let me drop on a ridge tile, and made his escape."-Swift. Change into two sentences, thus: "The ladders were now applied, and [they were] mounted by several men. The monkey, observing this, and finding himself almost encompassed, and not being able to make speed enough with his three legs, let me drop on a ridge tile, and made his escape."

Macaulay's Periods.— No one ever understood the management of sentences better than Macaulay. His longest and most complex sentences are thoroughly periodic, observing strictly the laws of unity, and they are always relieved by a succession of brief sentences, each usually containing a single, independent assertion. Take the following example, from his description of the trial of Warren Hastings:

The place was worthy of such a trial. It was the great hall of William Rufus; the hall which had resounded with the inauguration of thirty kings; the hall which had witnessed the just sentence of Bacon and the just absolution of Somers; the hall where the eloquence of Strafford had for a moment awed and melted a victorious party inflamed with just resentment; the hall where Charles had confronted the High Court of Justice with the placid courage which has half redeemed his fame. Neither military nor civil pomp was wanting. The avenues were lined with grenadiers. The streets were kept clear by cavalry. The peers, robed in gold and ermine, were marshalled by the heralds under Garter-King-at-Arms. The judges, in their vestments of state, attended to give advice on points of law.

Some of the subordinate rules to be observed in maintaining the unity of a sentence are the following: *

1. Change of Subject.

During the course of the sentence, let the subject be changed as little as possible.

There is usually, in every sentence, some one person or thing which is the object of general interest. Everything else moves round this, as the centre of the thought. If, in the construction of the sentence, this person or thing becomes the grammatical subject of the several verbs, if it is also that to which the several adjectives or particles apply, the unity of the sentence is at once secured.

"After we came to anchor, they put me on shore, where I was welcomed by all my friends, who received me with the greatest kindness." Here are four verbs, each with a different subject, "we," "they," "I," "who." The mind is hurried from one subject and scene to another, until the thoughts are a perfect chaos. Yet if we stop to analyze the passage, we find a sufficient bond of connection among the several ideas. The connecting link is the person of the narrator. Rearranging the sentence on this basis, we have the following: "Having come to an anchor, I was put on shore, where I was welcomed by all my friends, and received with the greatest kindness."

"The highly raised expectation of the audience was more than satisfied with the exuberance of his thought and the splendor of his diction, while the character and institutions of the natives of India were described by him; the circumstances in which the Asiatic empire of Britain had originated, were recounted; and the constitution of the Company and of the English Presidencies was set forth." Here are four separate subjects, carrying the mind successively to four different points of view, and thus effectually destroying all unity of thought. The real centre of interest in the sentence is "he," Burke, the orator. See how everything crystallizes around this central idea of the passage, as it comes from the pen of Macaulay: "With an exuberance of thought and a splendor of diction which more than satisfied the highly raised expectations of the audience, he described the character and institutions of the natives of India; recounted the circumstances in which the Asiatic empire of Britain had originated; and set forth the constitution of the Company and of the Presidencies."

2. Crowding Together Things Unconnected.

Do not crowd into one sentence things which have so little connection that they can just as well be divided into two or

more sentences.

*Blair, Lecture XI.

"He [Tillotson] was exceedingly beloved both by King William and Queen Mary who nominated Dr. Tennison, Bishop of London, to succeed him." Here the thought in the latter clause has no natural connection with that in the former, and the two should not be connected grammatically. If the latter clause contained some reason why the deceased Archbishop had been so beloved by the King and Queen, as, for example, "who had known him intimately many years," or, if it contained some circumstance showing the extent of their grief, as, "who ordered a monument to his memory to be erected in Westminster Abbey," the addition of the clause would be excusable. As it is, the two clauses contain two independent assertions, which are connected grammatically, though unconnected in thought. We might as well say, "The flood carried away the wire bridge built by Mr. Roebling, who lives in the city of Trenton."

"To this succeeded that licentiousness which entered with the Restoration, and from infecting our religion and morals, fell to corrupt our language; which last was not likely to be much improved by those who at that time made up the court of King Charles the Second; either such as had followed him in his banishment, or had been altogether conversant in the dialect of these fanatic times; or young men who had been educated in the same country; so that the court, which used to be the standard of correctness and propriety of speech, was then, and I think has ever since continued, the worst school in England for that accomplishment; and so will remain, till better care be taken in the education of our nobility, that they may be set out in the world with some foundation of literature, in order to qualify them for patterns of politeness."-Swift.

The faults of this sentence are manifold, besides its utter want of unity. The only way thoroughly to remedy these faults would be to rewrite the sentence, preserving the thoughts, but paying no regard to the present construction. The passage may be to some extent improved by breaking it up into five or six sentences, with a few slight verbal changes, thus:

"To this succeeded that licentiousness, which entered with the Restoration, and [which], from infecting our religion and morals, fell to corrupt[ing] our language. This last was not likely to be much improved by those who at that time made up the court of King Charles the Second. [These were] either such as had followed him in his banishment, or such as had been altogether conversant in the dialect of these fanatic times; or [they were] young men who had been educated in the same country [with him]. Consequently the court, which used to be the standard of correctness and propriety of speech, was then, as I think [it] has ever since continued [to be], the worst school in England for that accomplishment. So will it remain, till better care be taken in the education of our nobility, that they be set out in the world with some foundation in literature, in order to qualify them for patterns of politeness."

3. Relative Clauses.

Do not complicate a sentence by hanging a relative clause upon another relative clause which is itself in a dependent condition.

What is not Forbidden.- This rule does not forbid two or more relative clauses having a common dependence upon some preceding word or clause, as, for example, in one of the sentences just given: "To this succeeded that licentiousness, which entered with the Restoration, and which, from infecting our religion and morals, fell to infecting our language." The two clauses here, beginning with "which," have a common dependence upon "licentiousness." The construction therefore is allowable.

"Cicero was opposed by a new and cruel affliction, the death of his beloved daughter Tullia; which happened soon after her divorce from Dolabella; whose manners and humors were entirely disagreeable to him." Here the third clause, beginning with "whose," is dependent upon the second, beginning with "which," and that in turn is dependent upon the first or principal clause. There is indeed a connection running through the whole, but it is the connection of links in a chain, rather than that of independent links hanging separately upon some common support; and this hanging of one relative clause upon another which is itself dependent is highly objectionable.

"The march [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-fish." Here the second relative clause is directly dependent upon the first, as the first is upon the main affirmation of the sentence. The construction therefore is in violation of the rule. The second "whose" refers to "sheep," the first to "country." They marched through a country whose inhabitants ate flesh which was bad. The essence of the fault here consists, not in there being no connection in the things mentioned, but in this repetition of the "which" without a common antecedent. The sentence thereby becomes involved and its unity impaired. The passage may be greatly improved by a slight alteration, dividing it into two sentences. Thus: "The march of the Greeks was through an uncultivated country. Its 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-fish."

4. Parentheses.

Keep clear of parentheses.

Blair's Opinion of Parentheses.-"On some occasions, parentheses may have a spirited appearance, as prompted by a certain vivacity of thought, which can glance happily aside, as it is going along. But, for the most part, their effect is extremely bad; being a sort of wheels within wheels; sentences in the midst of sentences; the perplexed method of disposing of some thought, which a writer wants art to introduce in its proper place."

Danger in Using Parentheses.- Writers who indulge much in the use of parentheses are apt to be led on from one thing to another,

until the starting-point of the sentence is entirely lost sight of, and it has to be recalled to the reader's attention by "I say," or some such awkward formula of repetition. The use of this clumsy device is a sure sign of a badly constructed sentence. It is an open admission on the part of the writer, that his sentence has become involved, and that he lacks either the skill or the industry to make its construction better.

5. Supplementary Clauses.

Do not tack on an additional or supplementary clause, after the sentence has been apparently brought to a close.

"With these writings [Cicero's], young divines are more conversant than with those of Demosthenes, who, by many degrees, excelled the other; at least as an orator." Any one reading this sentence feels, on coming to "other," as if the sense was completed, and the voice at this place naturally comes to a halt. The whole structure of what goes before creates the expectation of a pause here. The proposition is concluded: we look for no more. The added words, therefore, come in with a very bad grace. How much better the sentence would have been, if constructed thus: With these writings [Cicero's], young divines are more conversant than with those of Demosthenes, who, as an orator at least, excelled, by many degrees. the other."

"The first [writer] 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." Here "indignation" concludes the sentence. The added clause is a new and independent proposition, and ought to make a separate sentence.

Blair on Supplementary Clauses.-"An unfinished sentence is no sentence at all. But very often we meet with sentences that are, so to speak, more than finished. When we have arrived at what we expected was to be the conclusion; when we have come to the word on which the mind is naturally led, by what went before, to rest; unexpectedly, some circumstance pops out, which ought, [either] to have been omitted, or to have been disposed of elsewhere; but which is left lagging behind, like a tail adjusted to the sentence. All these adjections to the proper close disfigure a sentence extremely. They give it a lame, ungraceful aim, and, in particular, they break its unity."- Blair.

Examples for Practice.

[Sentences to be corrected in reference to Unity, under some of the heads which have been discussed.]

1. They asserted not only the future immortality, but the past