picture you will present us with a piece of reasoning or declamation. Would you, on the contrary, give to reasoning itself the force and vivacity of painting, follow the method first prescribed, and that even when you represent the energy of spiritual causes, which were never subjected to the scrutiny of sense. You will thus convert a piece of abstruse reflection, which, however just, makes but a slender impression upon the mind, into the most affecting and instructive imagery.

It is in this manner the psalmist treats that most sublime, and, at the same time, most abstract of all subjects, the providence of God. With what success he treats it, every person of taste and sensibility will judge. After a few strictures on the life of man, and of the inferior animals, to whatever element, air, or earth, or water, they belong, he thus breaks forth: "These wait all upon thee, that thou mayest give them their meat in due season. Thou givest them. They gather. Thou openest thy hand. They are filled with good. Thou hidest thy face. They are troubled. Thou takest away their breath. They die and return to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy Spirit. They are created. Thou renewest the face of the earth."* It must be acknowledged, that it is not every subject, no, nor every kind of composition, that requires, or even admits the use of such glowing colours. The psalm is of the nature of the ode, being, properly defined, a sacred ode; and it is allowed that this species of poesy demands more fire than any other.

It may indeed be thought, that the vivacity resulting from this manner of composing is sufficiently accounted for, from the brevity which it occasions, and of which I treated in the preceding chapter. It is an undoubted truth, that the brevity here contributes to the force of the expression, but it is not solely to this principle that the effect is to be ascribed. A good taste will discern a difference in a passage already quoted from the song of Moses, as it stands in our version, and as it is literally rendered from the Hebrew;† though in both, the number of words, and even of syllables, is the same. Observe, also, the expression of the psalmist, who, having compared man, in respect of duration, to a flower, says concerning the latter, "The wind passeth over it, and it is gone." Had he said, "The wind passing over it, destroys it," he had expressed the same sentiment in fewer words, but more weakly.

But it may be objected, If such is the power of the figure asyndeton, and if the conjunctive particles are naturally the weakest parts in a sentence, whence comes it that the figure polysyndeton, the reverse of the former, should be productive of that energy which rhetoricians ascribe to it? I answer, the cases must be very different which require such opposite methods. Celerity of operation, and fervour in narration, are best expressed by the first. A deliberate attention to every circumstance, as being of importance, and to this in particular, the multiplicity of the circumstances, is best awakened by the second. The conjunctions and relatives excluded by the asyndeton are such as connect clauses and members; those repeated by + Exod. xv. 7. Psalms ciii. 16.

*Psalms civ. 27-30.

the polysyndeton are such as connect single words only. All connectives alike are set aside by the former; the latter is confined to copulatives and disjunctives. A few examples of this will illustrate the difference. "While the earth remaineth," said God immediately after the deluge, "seedtime, and harvest, and cold, and heat, and summer, and winter, and day, and night, shall not cease."* Every thing to which a permanency of so great importance is secured, requires the inost deliberate attention. And in the following declaration of the apostle, much additional weight and distinctness are given to each particular by the repetition of the conjunction. "I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God."t

SECTION III.

COMPLEX SENTENCES.

PART I. · Subdivison of these into periods and loose sentences.

These

I COME now to the consideration of complex sentences. are of two kinds. They are either periods, or sentences of a looser composition, for which the language doth not furnish us with a particular name. A period is a complex sentence, wherein the meaning remains suspended till the whole is finished. The connexion consequently is so close between the beginning and the end, as to give rise to the name period, which signifies circuit. The following is such a sentence: "Corruption could not spread with so much success, though reduced into system, and though some ministers, with equal impudence and folly, avowed it by themselves and their advocates to be the principal expedient by which they governed, if a long and almost unobserved progression of causes and effects did not prepare the conjunction." The criterion of a period is this: If you stop any where before the end, the preceding words will not form a sentence, and therefore cannot convey any determined sense. This is plainly the case with the above example. The first verb being could, and not can, the potential and not the indicative mood, shows that the sentence is hypothetical, and requires to its completion some clause beginning with if, unless, or some other conditional particle. And after you are come to the conjunction, you find no part where you can stop before the end. § From this account of the

* Gen. viii. 22.

Bolingh. Spirit of Patriotism.

† Rom. viii 38, 39.

It is surprising that most modern critics seem to have mistaken totally the import of the word period, confounding it with the complex sentence in general,

nature of a period, we may justly infer, that it was much easier in Greek and Latin to write in periods than it is in English, or perhaps in any European tongue. The construction with them depended mostly on inflection; consequently, the arrangement, which ascertains the character of the sentence in respect of composition, was very much in their own power; with us, on the contrary, the construction depends mostly on arrangement, which is therefore comparatively very little in our power. Accordingly, as the sense in every sentence hangs entirely on the verb, one ordinary way with them of keeping the sense suspended was, by reserving the verb to the end. This in most cases the structure of modern languages will not permit us to imitate. An example of a complex sentence, that is not a period, I shall produce from the same performance. "One party had given their whole attention, during several years, to the project of enriching themselves, and impoverishing the rest of the nation; and by these and other means, of establishing their dominion, under the government, and with the favour of a family who were foreigners, and therefore might believe that they were established on the throne, by the good will and strength of this party alone." The criterion of such loose sentences is as follows: There will always be found in them one place at least before the end, at which, if you make a stop, the construction of the preceding part will render it a

and sometimes even with the simple but circumstantiated sentence. Though, none of the ancients, as far as I remember, either Greek or Latin, have treated this matter with all the precision that might be wished, yet it appears to me evident, from the expressions they employ, the similitudes they use, and the examples they produce, that the distinction given above perfectly coincides with their notions on this subject. But nothing seems more decisive than the instance which Demetrius Phalereus has given of a period from Demosthenes, and which, for the sake of illustrating the difference, he has also thrown into the form of a loose sentence. I refer the learned reader to the book itself: IIɛpi èpμnvεias I. IA. The ancients did indeed sometimes apply the word period to simple but circumstantiated sentences of a certain structure. I shall give the following example in our own language for an illustration: "At last, after much fatigue, through deep roads and bad weather, we came with no small difficulty to our journey's end." Otherwise thus, "We came to our journey's end at last, with no small difficulty after much fatigue, through deep roads, and bad weather." The latter is in the loose, the former in the periodic composition. Accordingly in the latter there are, before the conclusion, no less than five words, which I have distinguished by the character, namely, end, last, difficulty, fatigue, roads, with any of which the sentence might have terminated. One would not have expected that a writer so accurate and knowing as M. Du Marsais should have so far mistaken the meaning of the word period in the usage of the ancients, as to define it in this manner: La periode est un assemblage de propositions, liées entr' elles par des conjonctions, et qui toutes ensemble font un sens fini. "The period is an assemblage of propositions connected by conjunctions, and making altogether one complete sense.' ." (Principes de Grammaire, La Periode.) This is a proper definition of a complex sentence; and that he meant no more is manifest from all his subsequent illustrations. Take the following for an example, which he gives in another place of the same work: “Il y a un avantage réel à ètre instruit; mais il ne faut pas que cet avantage inspire de l'orgueil." There is a real advantage in being instructed; but we ought not to be proud of this advantage." He adds, "Le mais raproche les deux propositions ou membres de la periode, et les met en opposition." "The but connects the two propositions or members of the period, and sets them in opposition." Des conjonctions. It is evident that the sentence adduced is no period in the sense of the ancients.

complete sentence. Thus in the example now given, whether you stop at the word themselves, at nation, at dominion, at government, or at foreigners, all which words are marked in the quotation in italics, you will find you have read a perfect sentence.

Wherefore, then, it may be asked, is this denominated one sentence, and not several? For this reason, that though the preceding words, when you have reached any of the stops above mentioned, will make sense, and may be construed separately, the same cannot be said of the words which follow. In a period, the dependence of the numbers is reciprocal; in a loose sentence the former members have not a necessary dependence on the latter, whereas the latter depend entirely on the former. Indeed, if both former and latter members are, in respect of construction, alike independent on one another, they do not constitute one sentence, but two or more. And here I shall remark, by the way, that it is by applying the observation just now made, and not always by the pointing, even where the laws of punctuation are most strictly observed, that we can discriminate sentences. When they are closely related in respect of sense, and when the sentences themselves are simple, they are for the most part separated only by commas or by simicolons, rarely by colons, and almost never by points. In this way the passages above quoted from the song of Moses and the Psalms, are pointed in all our English Bibles.

But there is an intermediate sort of sentences which must not be altogether overlooked, though they are neither entirely loose, nor perfect periods. Of this sort is the following: "The other institution," he is speaking of the ucharist, "has been so disguised by ornament, and so much directed in your church at least, to a different purpose from commemoration, that if the disciples were to assemble at Easter in the chapel of his holiness, Peter would know his successor as little, || as Christ would acknowledge his vicar; and the rest would be unable to guess || what the ceremony represented || or intended."* This sentence may be distributed into four members. The first is complex, including two clauses, and ends at commemoration. The second is simple, ending at holiness. It is evident that the sentence could not terminate at either of these places, or at any of the intermediate words. The third member is subdivided into two clauses, and ends at vicar. It is equally evident that if the sentence had been concluded here, there would have been no defect in the construction. The fourth member, which concludes the sentence, is also compound, and admits a subdivision into three clauses. At the word represented, which finishes the second clause, the sentence might have terminated. The two words which could have admitted a full stop after them, are distinguished by italics. Care hath also been taken to discriminate the members and the clauses. It may, however, justly be affirmed, that when the additional clause or clauses are, as in the preceding example, intimately connected with the foregoing words, the sentence may still be considered as a period, since it hath much the same effect. Perhaps some of the

Bol. Phil. Es. iv. Sect. 7.

examples of periods to be produced in the sequel, if examined very critically, would fall under that denomination. But this is of little or no consequence.

On comparing the two kinds of complex sentences together, to wit, the period and the loose sentence, we find that each hath its advantages and disadvantages. The former savours more of artifice and design, the latter seems more the result of pure Nature. The period is nevertheless more susceptible of vivacity and force; the loose sentence is apt, as it were, to languish and grow tiresome. The first is more adapted to the style of the writer, the second to that of the speaker. But as that style is best, whether written or spoken, which hath a proper mixture of both; so there are some things in every species of discourse, which require a looser, and some which require a preciser manner. In general, the use of periods best suits the dignity of the historian, the political writer, and the philosopher. The other manner more befits the facility which ought to predominate in essays, dialogues, familiar letters, and moral tales. These approach nearer the style of conversation, into which periods can very rarely find admittance. In some kinds of discourses intended to be pronounced, but not delivered to the public in writing, they may properly find a place in the exordium and narration, for thus far some allowance is made for preparation; but are not so seasonable, unless very short, in the argumentative part, and the pathetic.

PART II.

Observations on periods, and on the use of antithesis in the composition of sentences.

I Now proceed to offer some observations on the period. It hath been affirmed to have more energy than a sentence loosely composed. The reason is this: The strength which is diffused through the latter is in the former collected, as it were, into a single point. You defer the blow a little, but it is solely that you may bring it down with greater weight. But in order to avoid obscurity, as well as the display of art, rhetoricians have generally prescribed that a period should not consist of more than four members. For my own part, as members of sentences differ exceedingly both in length and in structure from one another, I do not see how any general rule can be established to ascertain their number. A period consisting of but two members may easily be found, that is at once longer, more artificial, and more obscure, than another consisting of five. The only rule which will never fail is, to beware both of prolixity and of intricacy; and the only competent judges in the case are, good sense and a good ear.

A great deal hath been said, both by ancient critics and by modern, on the formation and turn of periods. But their remarks are chiefly calculated with a view to harmony. In order to prevent the necessity of repeating afterwards, I shall take no notice of these remarks at present, though the rules founded on them do also in a certain degree contribute both to perspicuity and to strength.

That kind of period which hath most vivacity is commonly that