from which it is impossible for us entirely to disencumber ourselves, clogs the expression and enervates the sentiment.

But it is not in respect of brevity only that the ancient tongues above mentioned are capable of a more vivid diction than the modern; for when, in the declensions and conjugations, the inflection, as is frequently the case, is attended with an increase of the number of syllables, the expression, on the whole, cannot always be denominated briefer, even when it consists of fewer words. However, as was observed before, when the construction is chiefly determined by inflection, there is much ampler scope for choice in the arrangement, and, consequently, the speaker hath it much more in his power to give the sentence that turn which will serve most to enliven it.

But even this is not all the advantage they derive from this particularity in their structure. The various terminations of the same word, whether verb or noun, are always conceived to be more intimately united with the term which they serve to lengthen, than the additional, detached, and in themselves insignificant, syllables or particles, which we are obliged to employ as connectives to our significant words. Our method gives almost the same exposure to the one as to the other, making the insignificant parts and the significant equally conspicuous; theirs much oftener sinks, as it were, the former into the latter, at once preserving their use and hiding their weakness. Our modern languages may, in this respect, be compared to the art of carpentry in its rudest state, when the union of the materials employed by the artisan could be effected only by the help of those external and coarse implements, pins, nails, and cramps. The ancient languages resemble the same art in its most improved state, after the invention of dovetail joints, grooves, and mortises, when thus all the principal junctions are effected by forming properly the extremities or terminations of the pieces to be joined; for by means of these the union of the parts is rendered closer, while that by which their union is produced is scarcely perceivable.

Addison, if I remember right, somewhere compares an epic poem (and the same holds, though in a lower degree, of every other literary production), written in Greek or in Latin, to a magnificent edifice, built of marble, porphyry, or granite, and contrasts with it such a poem of performance in one of our modern languages, which he likens to such a building executed in freestone, or any of those coarser kinds of stone which abound in some northern climates. The latter may be made to answer all the essential purposes of accommodation as well as the former, but as the materials of which it is constructed are not capable of receiving the same polish, and, consequently, cannot admit some of the finer decorations, it

NN

will not only be inferior in beauty, but its imitative ornaments will be much less lively and expressive. It may, nevertheless, be equal to the other both in grandeur and in utility. If the representations that have been given of the Chinese language are genuine; if all their words are monosyllabic and indeclinable; if every relation and circumstance, even time and number, must be expressed by separate particles, I should think a performance in their tongue might be justly compared to a building in brick, which may be both neat and convenient, but which hardly admits the highly ornamental finishing of any order of architecture, or, indeed, any other species of beauty than that resulting from the perception of fitness. But this only by the way.

The

If I might be indulged one other similitude, I should remark, that the difference between the ancient Greek and Latin, and the modern European languages, is extremely analogous to the difference there is between their garb and ours. latter will, perhaps, be admitted to be equally commodiouspossibly, for some purposes, more so; but with its trumpery of buttons and button-holes, ligatures and plaits, formerly opposed to one another, it is stiff and unnatural in its appearance; whereas the easy flow and continually varied foldings of the former are at once more graceful, and better adapted for exhibiting nature in shape, attitude, and motion, to advantage. The human figure is, I may say, burlesqued in the one habit, and adorned by the other. Custom, which can conciliate us to anything, prevents us from seeing this in ourselves and in one another; but we quickly perceive the difference in pictures and statues. Nor is there a painter or a statuary of eminence who is not perfectly sensible of the odds, and who would not think his art degraded in being employed to exhibit the reigning mode. Nay, in regard to the trifling changes, for they are but trifling, which fashion is daily making on our garments, how soon are we ourselves brought to think ridiculous what we accounted proper, not to say elegant, but two or three years ago; whereas no difference in the fashions of the times and of the country can ever bring a man of taste to consider the drapery of the toga or of the pallium as any way ludicrous or offensive.

Perhaps I have carried the comparison farther than was at first intended. What hath been said, however, more regards the form or structure than the matter of the languages compared. Notwithstanding the preference given above in point of form to the ancient tongues, the modern may, in point of matter (or the words of which the language is composed), be superior to them. I am inclined to think that this is actually the case of some of the present European tongues. The materials which constitute the riches of a language will always bear a proportion to the acquisitions in knowledge made by

the people. For this reason, I should not hesitate to pronounce that English is considerably richer than Latin, and in the main fitter for all the subtile disquisitions both of philosophy and of criticism. If I am more doubtful in regard to the preference, when our tongue is compared with Greek, notwithstanding the superiority of our knowledge in arts and sciences, the reason of my doubt is the amazing ductility of that language, by which it was adapted to express easily in derivations and compositions-new, indeed, but quite analogical, and therefore quite intelligible-any discoveries in the sciences, or invention in the arts, that might at any time be made in their own, or imported from foreign countries. Nay, it would seem to be a general conviction of this distinguishing excellence that hath made Europeans almost universally recur to Greek for a supply of names to those things which are of modern invention, and with which the Grecians themselves never were acquainted, such as microscope, telescope, barometer, thermometer, and a thousand others.

CHAPTER V.

OF THE CONNECTIVES EMPLOYED IN COMBINING THE SENTENCES IN A DISCOURSE.

In the preceding chapter I have discussed what I had to offer on the manner of connecting the words, the clauses, and the members of a sentence. I intend in the present chapter to consider the various manners of connecting the sentences in a discourse, and to make some remarks on this subject for the assistance of the composer, which are humbly submitted to the judgment of the reader.

SECTION I.

THE NECESSITY OF CONNECTIVES FOR THIS PURPOSE.

It will scarcely be doubted by any person of discernment, that as there should always be a natural connexion in the sentiments of a discourse, there should generally be corresponding to this an artificial connexion in the signs. Without such a connexion the whole will appear a sort of patchwork, and not a uniform piece. To such a style we might justly apply the censure which the Emperor Caligula gave of Seneca's, that it is "sand without lime,"* the parts having no cohesion. As to the connexion of periods and other sentences, it is formed, like that of words, clauses, and members, most

* Arena sine calce.

ly by conjunctions, frequently by pronouns, the demonstra tive especially,* and sometimes by other methods, of which I shall soon have occasion to take notice.

When facts are related in continuation, or when one argu→ ment, remark, or illustration is with the same view produced after another, the conjunction is a copulative. If the sentiment in the second sentence is in any way opposed to that which immediately precedes, an adversative is employed to conjoin them. If it is produced as an exception, there are also exceptive conjunctions for the purpose. Both the last mentioned orders are comprehended under the general name disjunctive. If the latter sentence include the reason of what had been affirmed in the preceding, the casual is used. If, on the contrary, it contain an inference, it must be introduced by an illative. Besides these, there is in every tongue a number of phrases, which have the power of conjunctions in uniting sentences, and are of great utility in composition, both for enabling the orator to hit with greater exactness the relations, almost infinitely diversified, that may subsist between the thoughts, and for the variety they afford in that part of speech, wherein variety is more needed than in any other.** It likewise deserves our notice, that several of those words which are always classed by grammarians and lexicographers among the adverbs, have, in uniting the sev eral parts of a discourse, all the effect of conjunctions.†† The general name of connexive I shall therefore apply indiscriminately to them all.

SECTION II.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE MANNER OF USING THE CONNECTIVES IN COMBINING SENTENCES.

It remains to make a few observations with regard to the right manner of using the materials above specified for connecting sentences and paragraphs. It is not, indeed, by any use of them, that we can propose to add much energy to the style, for that is rarely the gift of these particles; but we may employ them so as to preclude the irksomeness and languor which invariably result from an improper use of them.

* This, that, such.

+ And, now, also, too, likewise, again, besides, further, moreover, yea, nay, nor. But, or, however, whereas.

For

Yet, nevertheless.
T Then, therefore.

** Add to this, in like manner, on the contrary, in short, to proceed, to return, to conclude. We might produce phrases, if necessary, corresponding to each of the above orders.

†† Such are some adverbs of time, as then, signifying at that time, hitherto, formerly; of place, as here, thus far; of order, as first, secondly, finally; of resemblance, as thus, accordingly; of contrariety, as else, otherwise, contrari

wise.

My first observation shall be, that as there are many conjunctions and connective phrases appropriated to the coupling of sentences that are never employed in joining the members of a sentence, so there are several conjunctions appropriated to the latter use which are never employed in the former, and some that are equally adapted to both these purposes. This distinction in connectives will be found in different instances to flow from different sources. In some

it is a natural distinction arising from the very import of the words; in which case we shall always find, on inquiry, that it obtains alike in every tongue. In other instances, it is a distinction merely customary, founded on the usages which prevail in a particular language.

As to those particles which are naturally fitted for conjoining clauses and members, but not sentences, they are chiefly the comparative,* the hypothetical, and the intentional. Let it not be imagined that, because a conjunction which falls under one or other of these denominations is often found in the beginning of a sentence, it serves to couple the sentence with that which went before. Such a connexive will always be discovered, on examination, to have no reference to anything without the sentence. Consider the following examples: "If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments"- 66 Though I tell you what I am, ye will not believe me"-" That I might save sinners I came into the world." It is manifest that the conjunction wherewith each of these sentences begins marks singly the relation that subsists between the two following clauses, or the nature of the dependance which the one has on the other. It is not even implied in the expression that anything had been said before. Accordingly, the same sense, without any variation, is expressed when the clauses are transposed, though sometimes the one arrangement will exhibit it with greater energy than the other. Thus, "Ye will keep my commandments, if ye love me"-"Ye will not believe me, though I tell you what I am;" and, “I came into the world that I might save sinners," are precisely the same sentiments with those contained in the examples produced.

But may not the subordinate part connected with the additional particle properly constitute one sentence, and the declaration another? Impossible. Every sentence must contain the enunciation of some proposition distinctly intelligible by itself, and expressive of some judgment, desire, or purpose of the speaker. But what only points to the motive or condition of something yet untold answers none of these ends. Thus the words "Unless ye repent" enunciate nothing, and therefore convey to the hearer no information of * Than. + If, though, although, when, unless, except.

That, so that, insomuch that, lest.