may be asked, then, is theism capable of nothing else, but being opposed to polytheism, or atheism? This is what the words literally import, through the wrong collocation of only. He should have said, Theism can be opposed only to polytheism or atheism.' In conversation, such inaccuracies may have no material inconvenience, because the tone and emphasis used in pronouncing them, generally serve to show their reference, and to make the meaning clear. But, in writing, where a person 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.

6

Secondly, when a circumstance is interposed in the middle of a sentence, it sometimes requires attention, to place it, so as to divest it of all ambiguity. For instance, Are these designs,' says Lord Bolingbroke, 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 should have been 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?'

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 with regard to it. A small error may obscure the meaning of the whole sentence; and even where the meaning is apparent, yet

* Dissert. on Parties, Dedicat.

Why may such inaccuracies have no material inconvenience in conversation; but of them in writing what is remarked? In the second place, what sometimes requires attention; and to illustrate this remark, what example is given from Lord Bolingbroke? Here, about what are we left at a loss; and if the latter was intended to be the meaning, how should it have been arranged? In the third place, to what is still more attention required? As all reasoning depends upon this connection, what follows; and why?

where these relative particles are misplaced, we always find something awkward and disjointed in the structure of the sentence. The following passage in one of Bishop Sherlock's sermons,* will serve to exemplify these observations: 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 is here 'treasure' and this would make nonsense of the whole period. The sentence should have been constructed thus: It is folly to pretend, by heaping up treasures, to arm ourselves against the accidents of life, against which nothing can protect us, but the good providence of our Heavenly Father.' Of the same nature is the following inaccuracy in the writings 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 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, that they can hardly read what they have written.'

6

With regard to relatives, I must farther observe, that obscurity often arises from the too frequent repetition of them, particularly of the pronouns who, and they, and theirs, and them, when we have occasion to refer to different persons; as in the following sentence of Archbishop Tillotson: 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.'t

* Vol. II. Serm. 15.

† Vol. I. Serm. 42.

What passage will serve to exemplify this observation? On this sentence what is remarked; and how should it have been constructed? Of the same nature is what inaccuracy from Dean Swift? In this passage what does he not mean; and, therefore, how should his words have been arranged? With regard to relatives, what must be farther observed; and as an illustration of this remark, what sentence is given from Tillotson?

This is altogether careless writing. It renders style often obscure, always embarrassed and inelegant; and to avoid it, the sentence should be thrown into some other form.

We now proceed to the second quality of a well arranged sentence, which we termed its unity. This is a capital property. The very nature of a sentence implies one proposition to be expressed. It may, indeed, consist of parts; but these parts must be so closely bound together, as to make the impression upon the mind, of one object, not of many.

To preserve this unity, we must first observe, that during the course of the sentence, the scene should be changed as little as possible. There is, commonly, in every sentence, some person or thing, which is the governing word. This should be continued so, if possible, from the beginning to the end of it. Should one express himself in this manner: '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, though the objects are sufficiently connected, yet by this manner of representing them, by shifting them 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 connection is nearly lost. The sentence may be 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.'

6

Another rule is, never to 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 hurt and displease the reader. Its effect, indeed, is so bad, 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. Examples of the transgression of this rule are exceedingly numerous. Arch

Of this what is remarked; and to avoid it what must be done? What is the second quality of a well arranged sentence; and of this, what is remarked? What does the very nature of a sentence imply; of what may it consist; but of these what is observed? To preserve this unity, what is first to be observed? What does every sentence, commonly, contain; and of this what is remarked? By what example is this remark illustrated; and what is observed of it? How may this sentence be restored to its proper unity? What is another rule for preserving the unity of a sentence; and what effect does the violation of it produce? What example of this is given from Tillotson; and what is observed of it?

bishop 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. Tenníson, Bishop of Lincoln, to succeed him.' Who 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,' The following sentence, from a translation of Plutarch, is still worse: Their march,' says the author, speaking of the Greeks under Alexander, 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 continued feeding upon sea fish.' Here the scene is changed again and again. The march of the Greeks, the description of the inhabitants through whose country they passed, the account of their sheep, and the reason that they were ill tasted food, form a jumble of objects, slightly related to each other, which the reader cannot, without much difficulty, comprehend under one view.

A third rule for preserving the unity of sentences, is, to keep clear of all parentheses in the middle of them. These may, on some occasions, 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 perplexed method of disposing of some thought, which a writer wants art to introduce into its proper place. Inaccuracies of this kind occur so frequently among incorrect writers, that it is not necessary to introduce any instances.

We shall add only one rule more for the unity of a sentence, which is to bring it always to a full and perfect close. Every thing that is one, should have a beginning, a middle, and an end. It need hardly be observed, that an unfinished

What sentence follows from a translation of Plutarch; and what is remarked of it? What is the third rule for preserving the unity of sentences? Why may these, on some occasions, have a spirited appearance; but why is their effect, for the most part, extremely bad? Of the frequent occurrence of inaccuracies of this kind, what is remarked? What farther rule, only, is added for the unity of a sentence; and why? What need hardly be observed; but what do we very often meet with?

sentence is no sentence at all, according to any grammatical rule. But we very often meet with sentences that are more than finished. When we have arrived at what we expected 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 to have been omitted, or to have been disposed of elsewhere. Thus, for instance, in the following sentence, from Sir William Temple, the adjection to the sentence is entirely foreign to it. Speaking of Burnet's Theory of the Earth, and Fontenelle's Plurality of Worlds: The first,' says he, 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. The word 'indignation,' should have concluded the sentence; for what follows is altogether new, and is added after the proper close.

6

How is this remark illustrated? What instance is given from Sir William Temple? What word should have concluded the sentence; and why ?