critics make a very just distinction of style, into style periodique and style coupé. The style periodique is where the Sentences are composed of several members linked together, and hanging upon one another; so that the sense of the whole is not brought out till the close. This is the most pompous, musical, and oratorical manner of composing; as in the following sentence of Sir William Temple; If you look about you, and consider the lives of others as well as your own; if you think how few are born with honour, and how many die without name or children; how little beauty we see, and how few friends we hear of; how many diseases, and how much poverty there is in the world; you will fall down upon your knees, and, instead of repining at one affliction, will admire so many blessings which you have received from the hand of God." (Letter to Lady Essex.) Cicero abounds with sentences constructed after this manner.

The style coupé is, where the sense is formed into short independent propositions, each complete within itself; as in the following of Mr. Pope I confess it was want of consideration that made me an author. I writ, because it amused me. I corrected, because it was as pleasant to me to correct as to write. I published, because, I was told, I might please such as it was a credit to please.' (Preface to his works.) This is very much the French method of writing; and always suits gay and easy subjects. The style periodique, gives an air of gravity and dignity to composition. The style coupé, is more lively and striking. According to the nature of the composition, therefore, and the general character it ought to bear, the one or other may be predominant. But, in almost every kind of composition, the great rule is to intermix them. For the ear tires of either of them when too long continued: whereas, by a proper mixture of long and short periods, the ear is gratified, and a certain sprightliness is joined with majesty in our style. Non semper,' says Cicero (describing very expressively, these two different kinds of styles, of which I have been speaking) non semper utendum est perpetuitate, et quasi conversione verborum; sed sæpe carpenda membris minutioribus oratio est.**

This variety is of so great consequence, that it must be studied, not only in the succession of long and short sentences, but in the structure of our sentences also. A train of sentences, constructed in the same manner, and with the same number of members, whether long or short, should never be allowed to succeed one another. However musical each of them may be, it has a better effect to introduce even a discord, than to cloy the ear with the repetition of similar sounds for, nothing is so tiresome as perpetual uniformity. In this article of the construction and distribution of his sentences, Lord Shaftesbury has shewn great art. In the last lecture I observed that he is often guilty of sacrificing precision of style to pomp of expression; and that there runs through his whole manner, a stiffness and affectation, which renders him very unfit to be considered as a general model. But as his ear was fine, and as he was extremely attentive to every thing that is elegant, he has studied the proper intermixture of long and short sentences, with variety and harmony in their structure, more than any other English author; and for this part of composition he deserves attention.

*"It is not proper always to employ a continual train, and a sort of regular compass of phrases; but style ought to be often broken down into smaller numbers."

From these general observations, let us now descend to a more particular consideration of the qualities that are required to make a sentence perfect. So much depends upon the proper construction of sentences, that, in every sort of composition, we cannot be too strict in our attention to it. For, be the subject what it will, if the sentences be constructed in a clumsy, perplexed, or feeble manner, it is impossible that a work, composed of such sentences, can be read with pleasure, or even with profit. Whereas, by giving attention to the rules which relate to this part of style, we acquire the habit of expressing ourselves with perspicuity and elegance; and, if a disorder chance to arise in some of our sentences, we immediately see where it lies, and are able to rectify it.*

The properties most essential to a perfect sentence, seem to me, the four following: 1. Clearness and precision. 2. Unity. 3. Strength. 4. Harmony. Each of these I shall illustrate separately, and at some length.

The first is, clearness and precision. The least failure here, the least degree of ambiguity, which leaves the mind in any sort of suspense as to the meaning, ought to be avoided with the greatest care; nor is it so easy a matter to keep always clear of this, as one might, at first, imagine. Ambiguity arises from two causes: either from a wrong choice of words, or a wrong collocation of them. Of the choice of words, as far as regards perspicuity, I treated fully in the last lecture. Of the collocation of them, I am now to treat. The first thing to be studied here, is, to observe exactly the rules of grammar, as far as these can guide us. But as the grammar of our language is not extensive, there may often be an ambiguous collocation of words, where there is no transgression of any grammatical rule. The relations which the words, or members of a period, bear to one another, cannot be pointed out in English, as in the Greek or Latin, by means of termination; it is ascertained only by the position in which they stand. Hence a capital rule in the arrangement of sentences is, that the words or members most nearly related, should be placed in the sentence, as near to each other as possible; so as to make their mutual relation clearly appear. This is a rule not always observed, even by good writers, as strictly as it ought to be. It will be necessary to produce some instances, which will both show the importance of this rule, and make the application of it to be understood.

First, in the position of adverbs, which are used to qualify the signification of something which either precedes or follows them, there is often a good deal of nicety. By greatness,' says Mr. Addison, in the Spectator, No. 412, I do not only mean the bulk of any single object, but the largeness of a whole view.' Here the place of the adverb only, renders it a limitation of the following word mean. 'I do not only mean." The question may then be put, What does he more than mean? Had he placed it after bulk, still it would have been wrong. 'I do not mean the bulk only of any single object.' For we might then ask, What does he

On the structure of sentences, the ancients appear to have bestowed a great deal of attention and care. The Treatise of Demetrius Phalereus reg: Eguners, abounds with observations upon the choice and collocation of words carried to such a degree of nicety as would frequently seem to us minute. The Treatise of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Tov, is more masterly: but it is chiefly confined to the musical struc ture of periods; a subject for which the Greek language afforded much more assistance te their writers than our tongue admits. On the arrangement of words in English sentences, the xvnith chapt. of Lord Kaim's Elements of Criticism ought to be consulted; and alse this 2d volume of Dr. Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric.

mean more than the bulk? Is it the colour? Or any other property? Its proper place, undoubtedly, is, after the word object. By greatness, I do not mean the bulk of any single object only;' for then; when we put the question, What more does he mean than the bulk of a single object? The answer comes out exactly as the author intends, and gives it; The largeness of a whole view. Theism,' says Lord Shaftesbury,' can only be opposed to polytheism, or atheism.' Does he mean that theism is capable of nothing else, except being opposed to polytheism or atheism ? This is what his words literally import, through the wrong collocation of only. He should have said, 'Theism can be opposed only to polytheism or atheism.' In like manner, Dean Swift, (Project for the advancement of Religion), The Romans understood liberty, at least, as well as we.' These words are capable of two different senses, according as the emphasis, in reading them, is laid upon liberty, or upon at least. In the first case, they will signify, that whatever other things we may understand better than the Romans, liberty, at least, was one thing, which they understood as well as we. In the second case, they will import, that liberty was understood, at least as well by them as by us; meaning that by them it was better understood. If this last, as I make no doubt, was Dean Swift's own meaning, the ambiguity would have been avoided, and the sense rendered independent of the manner of pronouncing, by arranging the words thus: The Romans understood liberty as well, at least, as we.' The fact is, with respect to such adverbs, as only, wholly, at least, and the rest of that tribe, that in common discourse, the tone and emphasis we use in pronouncing them, generally serves to show their reference, and to make the meaning clear; and hence we acquire a habit of throwing them in loosely in the course of a period. But, in writing, where a man speaks to the eye, and not to the ear, he ought to be more accurate; and so to connect those adverbs with the words which they qualify, as to put his meaning out of doubt, upon the first inspection. Secondly, when a circumstance is interposed in the middle of a sentence, it sometimes requires attention how to place it, so as to divest it of all ambiguity. For instance; Are these designs,' says Lord Bolingbroke, Disser. on Parties, Dedicat. Are these designs, which any man, who is born a Briton, in any circumstances, in any situation, ought to be ashamed or afraid to avow? Here we are left at a loss, whether these words, in any circumstances, in any situation,' are connected with, a man born in Britain, in any circumstances, or situation,' or with that man's avowing his designs, in any circumstances, or situation into which he may be brought?" If the latter, as seems most probable, was intended to be the meaning, the arrangement ought to have been conducted thus ; 'Are these designs which any man who is born a Briton, ought to be ashamed or afraid, in any circumstances, in any situation, to avow? But Thirdly, still more attention is required to the proper disposition of the relative pronouns, who, which, what, whose, and of all those particles which express the connection of the parts of speech with one another. As all reasoning depends upon this connection, we cannot be too accurate and precise here. A small error may overcloud the meaning of the whole sentence; and even where the meaning is intelligible, yet, where these relative particles are out of their proper place, we always find something awkward and disjointed in the structure of the sentence. Thus, in the Spectator, (No. 54.) This kind of wit,' says Mr. Addison, was very much in vogue among our countrymen, about an age or two ago,

who did not practise it for any oblique reason, but purely for the sake of being witty.' We are at no loss about the meaning here; but the construction would evidently be mended by disposing of the circumstance, *about an age or two ago,' in such a manner as not to separate the relative who, from its antecedent our countrymen; in this way: 'About an age or two ago, this kind of wit was very much in vogue among our countrymen, who did not practise it for any oblique reason, but purely for the sake of being witty.' Spectator, No. 412. "We no where meet with a more glorious and pleasing show in nature, than what appears in the heavens at the rising and setting of the sun, which is wholly made up of those different stains of light, that show themselves in clouds of a different situation.' Which is here designed to connect with the word show, as its antecedent; but it stands so wide from it, that without a careful attention to the sense, we would be naturally led, by the rules of syntax, to refer it to the rising and setting of the sun, or to the sun itself; and hence, an indistinctness is thrown over the whole sentence. The following passage in Bishop Sherlock's sermons, (vol. ii. serm. 15.) is still more censurable: It is folly to pretend to arm ourselves against the accidents of life, by heaping up treasures, which nothing can protect us against, but the good providence of our heavenly Father,' which, always refers grammatically to the immediately preceding substantive, which here is treasures; and this would make nonsense of the whole period. Every one feels this impropriety. The sentence ought to have stood thus: It is folly to pretend, by heaping up treasures, to arm ourselves against the accidents of life, which nothing can protect us against but the good providence of our heavenly Father.'.

6

Of the like nature is the following inaccuracy of Dean Swift's. He is recommending to young clergymen, to write their sermons fully and distinctly. Many,' says he, act so directly contrary to this method, that, from a habit of saving time and paper, which they acquired at the university, they write in so diminutive a manner, that they can hardly read what they have written.' He certainly does not mean, that they had acquired time and paper at the university, but they had acquired this habit there; and therefore his words ought to have run thus: From a habit, which they have acquired at the university, of saving time and paper, they write in so diminutive a manner.' In another passage, the same author has left his meaning altogether uncertain, by misplacing a relative. It is in the conclusion of his letter to a member of parliament, concerning the sacramental test: Thus I have fairly given you, Sir, my own opinion, as well as that of a great majority of both houses here, relating to this weighty affair; upon which I am confident you may securely reckon." Now I ask, what is it he would have his correspondent to reckon upon, securely? The natural construction leads to these words, this weighty affair.' But, as it would be difficult to make any sense of this, it is more probable he meant that the majority of both houses might be securely reckoned upon; though certainly this meaning, as the words are arranged, is obscurely expressed. The sentence would be amended by arranging it thus: Thus, Sir, I have given you my own opinion, relating to this weighty affair, as well as that of a great majority of both houses here; upon which I am confident you may securely reckon.'

Several other instances might be given; but I reckon those which I have produced sufficient to make the rule understood; that in the construction of sentences, one of the first things to be attended to, is the

Ο

marshalling of the words in such order as shall most clearly mark the relation of the several parts of the sentence to one another; particularly, that adverbs shall always be made to adhere closely to the words which they are intended to qualify; that, where a circumstance is thrown in, it shall never hang loose in the midst of a period, but be determined by its place to one or other member of it; and that every relative word which is used, shall instantly present its antecedent to the mind of the reader, without the least obscurity. I have mentioned these three cases, because I think they are the most frequent occasions of ambiguity creeping into

sentences.

With regard to relatives, I must further observe, that obscurity often arises from the too frequent repetition of them, particularly of the pronouns who, and they, and them, and theirs, when we have occasion to refer to different persons; as, in the following sentence of Archbishop Tillotson; (vol. I. serm. 42.) Men look with an evil eye upon the good that is in others; and think that their reputation obscures them, and their commendable qualities stand in their light; and therefore they do what they can to cast a cloud over them, that the bright shining of their virtues may not obscure them." This is altogether careless writing. It renders style often obscure, always embarrassed and inelegant. When we find these personal pronouns crowding too fast upon us, we have often no method left, but to throw the whole sentence into some other form, which may avoid those frequent references to persons who have before been mentioned.

All languages are liable to ambiguities. Quintilian gives us some instances in the Latin, arising from faulty arrangement. A man, he tells us, ordered by his will, to have erected for him, after his death, Statuam auream hastam tenentem ;' upon which arose a dispute at law, whether the whole statue, or the spear only, was to be of gold? The same author observes, very properly, that a sentence is always faulty, when the collocation of the words is ambiguous, though the sense can be gathered. If any one should say, "Chremetem audivi percussisse Demeam,' this is ambiguous, both in sense and structure whether Chremes or Demea gave the blow. But if the expression were used, Se videsse hominem librum scribentem,' although the meaning be clear, yet Quintilian insists that the arrangement is wrong. Nam,' says he, ' etiamsi librum ab homine scribi pateat, non certè hominem a libro, malè tamen composuerat, feceratque ambiguum quantum in ipso fuit.' Indeed, to have the relation of every word and member of a sentence marked in the most proper and distinct manner, gives not clearness only, but grace and beauty to a sentence, making the mind pass smoothly and agreeably along all the parts of it.

I proceed now to the second quality of a well-arranged sentence, which I termed its unity. This is a capital property. In every composition, of whatever kind, some degree of unity is required, in order to render it beautiful. There must be always some connecting principle among the parts. Some one object must reign and be predominant. This, as I shall hereafter shew, holds in history, in epic and dramatic poetry, and in all orations. But most of all, in a single sentence, is required the strictest unity. For the very nature of a sentence implies one proposition to be expressed. It may consist of parts, indeed; but these parts must be so closely bound together, as to make the impression upon the mind, of one object, not of many. Now, in order to preserve this unity of a sentence, the following rules must be observed;"