are to be spoken, regard must be had to the easiness of pronunciation, which is not consistent with too long periods. In compositions where pronunciation has no place, still, however, by using long periods too frequently, an author overloads and fatigues the reader's attention. For long periods require, evidently, more attention than short ones, in order to perceive clearly the connexion of the several parts, and to take in the whole at one view. At the same time, in too many short sentences, also, there may be an excess, by which the sense is split and broken, the connexion of thought weakened, and the memory burdened, by presenting to it a long succession of minute objects. (Obs. 2. Art. 148.) Corol. 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 attention tires of either of them when too long continued: whereas, it is gratified by a proper mixture of long and short periods, in which a certain sprightliness is joined with majesty of style. "It is not proper always to employ a continued train, and a sort of regular compass of phrases; but style ought to be often broken down into smaller members."* 148. 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 either species of these sentences. Illus. 1. 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 to a reader, it has a better effect to introduce even a discord, than to cloy the ear with a repetition of similar sounds: for nothing is so tiresome as perpetual uniformity. (Art. 116. Illus. 1, 2. Crit. I. and II.) 149. The properties most essential to a perfect sentence seem to be the four following: 1. Clearness and precision. 2. Unity. 3. Strength. 4. Harmony. Each of these we shall illustrate separately, and at some length. Illus. The least failure in clearness and precision, which we consider the first essential properties to a perfect sentence, 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. Precision has already been considered; we shall here consider ambiguity as it arises either from a wrong choice of words, or a wrong collocation of them. In Chapter IV. this subject will be handled in its most extensive signification. Corol. 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 as strictly as it ought to be, even by good writers. It will be necessary to produce *"Non semper utendum est perpetuitate, et quasi conversione verborum; sed sæpe carpenda membris minutioribus oratio est." Cicero 9 some instances, which will both shew the importance of this rule, and make the application of it understood. (Art. 121.) 150. First, In the position of adverbs, which are used to qualify the signification of something that either precedes or follows them, there is often a good deal of nicety. (Art. 121. and Illus.) #66 Illus. "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." (Art. 70. Illus. 5.). Corol. With respect, then, to such adverbs as only, wholly, at least, and the rest of that tribe, which we use in common discourse, the tone and emphasis with which we pronounce them generally serve to show their reference, and to make their 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. (Illus. 11. Art. 124.) 151. 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. Illus. "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 a Briton, 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 to avow in any circumstances, in any situation?" But, 152. 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 connexion of the parts of speech with one another. As all reasoning depends upon this connexion, we cannot here be too accurate and precise. A small error may overcloud the *Swift's Project for the Advancement of Religion meaning of the whole sentence; and even where the meaning is intelligible, if these relative particles be out of their proper place, we always find something awkward and disjointed in the structure of the sentence. Illus. 1. "This kind of wit 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. Thus, 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." 2. Of the like nature is the following inaccuracy of Dean Swift. 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 that they had acquired this habit of saving both time and paper 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." Scholia. Several other instances might be given; but those which we have produced may be sufficient to make the rule understood. I. Namely, that in the construction of sentences, one of the first things to be attended to, is, the 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. II. 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 of the members in that period. III. And that every relative word which is used, shall instantly present its antecedent to the mind of the reader, without the least obscurity. In these three cases are contained some of the most frequent occasions of ambiguity creeping into sentences. (But see Chapters IV, V VI, VII, and VIII, of this book.) 153. With regard to relatives, we must farther 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. Illus. 1. "Men look with an evil eye upon the good that is in others; and think that their reputation obscures them, and their com mendable qualities stand in their light; and therefore they do what *Spectator, No. 54. they can to cast a cloud over them, that the bright shining of their virtues may not obscure them." وو 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. 2. All languages are liable to ambiguities. Quinctilian gives us some instances in the Latin arising from faulty arrangements. 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? 3. 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. Corol. Hence, 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. (Corol. Art. 149.) 154. UNITY is the second quality of a well-arranged sentence. 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. Obs. This 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 preposition to be expressed. It may consist of parts, indeed; but these parts must be so closely bound together, as to make upon the mind the impression of one object, not of many. Now, in order to preserve this unity of a sentence, the following rules must be observed. 155. In the first place, during the course of the sentence, the scene should be changed as little as possible. We should not be hurried by sudden transitions from person to person, nor from subject to subject. There is commonly, in every sentence, some person or thing, that is the governing word. This should be continued so, if possible, from the beginning to the end of the sentence, Illus. Should I express myself thus: "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." Though the objects contained in this sentence, have a sufficient connection with each other, * Tillotson, Vol. I. Serm. 42. ! yet, by this manner of representing them, by shifting so often both the place and the person, we, and they, and I, and who, they appear in such a disunited view, that the sense of the sentence is almost lost. The sentence is restored to its proper unity, by turning it after the following manner: "Having come to an anchor, I was put on shore, where I was welcomed by all my friends, and received with the greatest kindness." Writers who transgress this rule, for the most part transgress, at the same time, 156. A second rule; never crowd into one sentence, things which have so little connection, that they could bear to be divided into two or three sentences. The violation of this rule never fails to injure the style, and displease the reader. Its effect, indeed, is so disagreeable, that of the two, it is the safer extreme, to err rather by too many short sentences, than by one that is overloaded and embarrassed. Who Illus. 1. Examples abound in our own authors. We shall produce some, to justify what we have said. "Archbishop Tillotson," says an Author of the History of England, "died in this year. He was exceedingly beloved both by King William and Queen Mary, who nominated Dr. Tennison, Bishop of Lincoln, to succeed him." would expect the latter part of this sentence to follow, in consequence of the former? "He was exceedingly beloved by both King and Queen," is the proposition of the sentence: we look for some proof of this, or at least something related to it, to follow; when we are on a sudden carried off to a new proposition, "who nominated Dr. Tennison to succeed him." 2. The following is from Middleton's Life of Cicero: "In this uneasy state, both of his public and private life, Cicero was oppressed by a new and cruel affliction, the death of his beloved daughter Tullia; which happened soon after her divorce from Dolabella, whose manners and humours were entirely disagreeable to her." The principal object in this sentence is, the death of Tullia, which was the cause of her father's affliction; the date of it, as happening soon after her divorce from Dolabella, may enter into the sentence with propriety; but the subjunction of Dolabella's character is foreign to the main object, and totally breaks the unity and compactness of the sentence, by setting a new picture before the reader. (Art. 149.) 3. The following sentence, from a translation of Plutarch, is still worse: speaking of the Greeks under Alexander, the author says, "Their march 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 scene is changed upon us again and again. The march of the Greeks, the description of the inhabitants through whose country they travelled, the account of these people's riches lying wholly in sheep, and the cause of their sheep being illtasted food, form a jumble of objects, slightly related to each other, which the reader cannot, without much difficulty, comprehend under one view. (Cor. Art. 149.) 157. A third rule, for preserving the unity of sentences, is, to avoid all parentheses in the middle of them. On some |