An Introduction to the Theory of Rhetorical Punctuation.

DR. LOWTH has, with great plainness and precision, drawn the line which bounds the use of the comma upon paper, by telling us, that every simple sentence, or that sentence which has but one subject and one finite verb, cannot have any of its adjuncts, or imperfect phrases, separated by a point. This he illustrates by a sentence, where the subject and the verb are accompanied by as many adjuncts as they commonly are, but no provision is made for such phrases as extend to twice the length, and yet continue perfectly simple. The passion for praise produces excellent effects in women of sense,-is a sentence of so moderate a size, as may be pronounced even with solemnity and energy, by most people, without once taking breath; but if we amplify these adjuncts that accompany the nominative case and the verb in such a manner as is frequently to be met with, at least in incorrect composition, we shall find it impossible to pronounce the sentence with force and ease, without some interval for respiration ;--for instance, if we had the following sentence to read-A violent passion for universal admiration produces the most ridiculous circumstances in the general behaviour of women of the most excellent understandings.-If, I say, we had this sentence to read, how could we pos sibly pronounce it with force and ease, without once fetching breath ?—and yet, according to the strictest laws of grammar, no pause is to be admitted; for this latter sentence, though almost three times as long, is as perfectly simple as the former.

The necessity of taking breath, in some of these longer simple sentences, has obliged the most ae

curate and metaphysical inquirers into punctuation to admit of the most vague and indeterminate rules. The most subtile among the French writers* on this subject, after giving a thousand fine-spun reasons for placing the points with justness and precision, admits of placing a comma in a simple sentence"Quand les propositions sont trop longues pour être "enoncées de suite avec aisance." And one of our best English criticks tells us, that the difference between the colon and the semicolon has a dependence on something that influences all the points, and sways the whole doctrine of puncturation, which is, the length and shortness of the members and periods; for when the phrases are long, he says, we point higher than when they are short.

This confession is a sure proof, that the rules of these grammarians did not reach all cases; and that, in speaking, they often found themselves obliged to pause where they did not dare to insert a pause in writing, for fear of breaking the grammatical connection of the words: a fear, as will be seen hereafter, which arose from a superficial knowledge of the principles of rhetorical punctuation.

But as a proof that the shortest sentences are not always to be pronounced so as to preserve a perfect equality of time between every word, and consequently, that some words admit of longer intervals than others; we need only pronounce a short simple sentence in the different ways we did the long one.

Thus if we say, The passion for praise, produces excellent effects, in women of sense.-Here, I say, if we make a short pause at praise, and effects, we do not perceive the least impropriety; but if we repeat the same sentence, and make the same pauses at produces, and in, we shall soon discover an essential difference.-For example: The passion for praise

Beauzée Grammaire Generale.

produces, excellent effects in, women of sense.-Here, by using the same pause between different words, the sense is materially affected; which evidently shews how necessary it is to good reading and speaking, to pause only between such words as admit of being separated; and that it is not so much the number as the position of the pauses that affects the sense of a sentence.

And here a question naturally arises, since it is of so much consequence to the sense of a sentence where we admit a pause, what are the parts of speech which allow a pause between them and what are those which do not? To which it may be answered, that the comma, or, what is equivalent to it in reading, a short pause, may be so frequently admitted between words in a grammatical connection, that it will be much easier to say where it cannot intervene, than where it can. The only words which seem too intimately connected to admit a pause, are-the article and the substantive, the substantive and the adjective in their natural order, and the preposition and the noun it governs; every other combination of words, when forming simple sentences of considerable length, seems divisible if occasion require. That a substantive in the nominative case may be separated from the verb it governs, will be readily admitted, if we consider with how many adjuncts, or modifying words, it may be connected; and, consequently, how difficult it will be to carry the voice on to the verb with force, and to continue this force till the objective case with all its adjuncts and concomitants are pronounced: this will appear evidently from the amplified sentence already produced; which, though not a very common, is a very possible example; and rules founded on the reason of a thing, must either suit all cases or none.

Whatever, therefore, may be the integrity of grammatical connection to the eye, certain it is that the

ear perceives neither obstruction nor obscurity in a pause between the nominative case and the verb, when the nominative is composed of such words as are less separable. Nay, we find the substantive verb, by the most scrupulous grammarians, constantly separated from its preceding noun by a comma, whenever the noun is joined to any considerable number of less separable words.

EXAMPLES.

One great use of prepositions in English, is to express those relations, which, in some languages, are chiefly marked by Dr. Lowth's Grammar.

cases.

A colon, or member, is a chief constructive part, or greater division of a sentence. Ibid.

The very notion of any duration's being past, implies that it was once present; for the idea of being once present, is actually included in the idea of its being past.

Spectator, No. 590.

This punctuation of the substantive verb runs through our whole typography, and sufficiently shews the division which the ear invariably makes, when delivery requires a distinct and forcible pronunciation; for not the smallest reason can be given, why this verb should be separated from its noun, that will not be equally applicable to every other verb in the language.

The general reluctance, however, at admitting a pause to the eye, between the nominative case and the verb, is not without a foundation in reason. The pauses of distinction between the parts of a complex nominative case, seem specifically different from the pause between the nominative case and the verb; that the same pause, therefore, to the eye should be used between both, seems repugnant to a feeling of the different kind of connection that subsists between parts which are only occasionally united, and those which are necessarily united; thus in the following sen

tence: Riches, pleasure, and health become evils to the generality of mankind.

There are few readers who would not make a longer pause between the nominative health and the verb become, than between riches and pleasure, or pleasure and health; and yet there are few writers, or printers, who would not insert a pause after the two first words, and omit it after the third. This gener

al practice can arise from nothing but the perception of the difference there is between those parts that compose the nominative plural, and those parts which compose the nominative and the verb; and rather than confound this difference, we choose to omit the pause in writing, though we use it in speaking: till, therefore, we have a point, which, like one of the Hebrew points, at the same time that it marks a distinction between parts, marks a necessary connection between them also, we must be contented to let this useful and distinguishing pause in reading and speaking go unmarked in writing and printing.

If we inquire into the difference between the parts of the nominative, and the nominative itself as part of the sentence, we shall find that the former are only parts of a part, and that the latter is a part of a whole; or, in other words, the former are parts of a superior part, and the latter is the superior part itself; which part, as it consists of several parts, must, in order to show that these parts form only one part, be terminated by a pause, longer than what is given to the parts of which it is composed; but as such a pause can only be marked by a semicolon, and as a semicolon is often a mark of disjunction, it would be highly improper to place it between words so intimately connected as the nominative and the verb ; for as these words, except sometimes on account of emphasis, admit of no separation by a pause, when the nominative does not consist of parts, so, unless we had a pause, which would shew this union of