tends to lay us asleep. An interrupted sound rouses and animates by its
repeated impulses. Hence it is, that syllables collected into feet,
being pronounced with a sensible interval betwixt each, make more lively
impressions than can be made by a continued sound. A period, the members
of which are connected by copulatives, produceth an effect upon the mind
approaching to that of a continued sound: and therefore to suppress the
copulatives must animate a description. To suppress the copulatives hath
another good effect. The members of a period connected by the proper
copulatives, glide smoothly and gently along; and are a proof of
sedateness and leisure in the speaker. On the other hand, a man in the
hurry of passion, neglecting copulatives and other particles, expresses
the principal image only. Hence it is, that hurry or quick action is
best expressed without copulatives:
Veni, vidi, vici.
---- Ite:
Ferte cite flammas, date vela, impellite remos.
_Æneid._ iv. 593.
Quis globus, O Cives, caligine volvitur atra?
Ferte cite ferrum, date tela, scandite muros.
Hostis adest, eja.
_Æneid._ ix. 36.
In this view Longinus[88] justly compares copulatives in a period to
strait tying, which in a race obstructs the freedom of motion.
It follows from the same premisses, that to multiply copulatives in the
same period ought to be avoided. For if the laying aside copulatives
give force and liveliness, a redundancy of them must render the period
languid. I appeal to the following instance, though there are not more
than two copulatives.
Upon looking over the letters of my female correspondents, I find
several from women complaining of jealous husbands; and at the same
time protesting their own innocence, and desiring my advice upon
this occasion.
_Spectator_, Nº 170.
I except the case where the words are intended to express the coldness
of the speaker; for there the redundancy of copulatives is a beauty.
Dining one day at an alderman’s in the city, Peter observed him
expatiating after the manner of his brethren, in the praises of his
sirloin of beef. “Beef,” said the sage magistrate, “is the king of
meat: Beef comprehends in it the quintescence of partridge, and
quail, and venison, and pheasant, and plum-pudding, and custard.”
_Tale of Tub_, § 4.
And the author shows great taste in varying the expression in the mouth
of Peter, who is represented more animated.
“Bread,” says he, “dear brothers, is the staff of life, in which
bread is contained, _inclusivè_, the quintescence of beef, mutton,
veal, venison, partridge, plum-pudding, and custard.”
We proceed to the second kind of beauty, which consists in a due
arrangement of the words or materials. This branch of the subject is not
less nice than extensive; and I despair to put it in a clear light,
until a sketch be given of the general principles that govern the
structure or composition of language.
Every thought, generally speaking, contains one capital object
considered as acting or as suffering. This object is expressed by a
substantive noun. Its action is expressed by an active verb; and the
thing affected by the action is expressed by another substantive noun.
Its suffering or passive state is expressed by a passive verb, and the
thing which acts upon it, by a substantive noun. Beside these, which are
the capital parts of a sentence or period, there are generally
under-parts. Each of the substantives as well as the verb, may be
qualified. Time, place, purpose, motive, means, instrument, and a
thousand other circumstances, may be necessary to complete the thought.
And in what manner these several parts are connected together in the
expression, will appear from what follows.
In a complete thought or mental proposition, all the members and parts
are mutually related, some slightly, some more intimately. In
communicating such a thought, it is not sufficient that the component
ideas be clearly expressed: it is also necessary, that all the relations
contained in the thought be expressed according to their different
degrees of intimacy. To annex a certain meaning to a certain sound or
word, requires no art. The great nicety in all languages is, to express
the various relations that connect together the parts of the thought.
Could we suppose this branch of language to be still a secret, it would
puzzle, I am apt to think, the greatest grammarian ever existed, to
invent an expeditious method. And yet, by the guidance merely of nature,
the rude and illiterate have been led to a method so perfect, that it
appears not susceptible of any improvement. Without a clear conception
of the manner of expressing relations, one at every turn must be at a
loss about the beauties of language; and upon that subject therefore I
find it necessary to say a few words.
Words that import a relation, must be distinguished from those that do
not. Substantives commonly imply no relation, such as _animal_, _man_,
_tree_, _river_. Adjectives, verbs, and adverbs, imply a relation. The
adjective _good_ must be connected with some substantive, some being
possessed of that quality. The verb _write_ must be applied to some
person who writes; and the adverbs _moderately_, _diligently_, have
plainly a reference to some action which they modify. When in language a
relative term is introduced, all that is necessary to complete the
expression, is, to ascertain that thing to which the term relates. For
answering this purpose, I observe in Greek and Latin two different
methods. Adjectives are declined as well as substantives; and declension
serves to ascertain the connection that is betwixt them. If the word
that expresses the subject be, for example, in the nominative case, so
also must the word be that expresses its quality. Example, _vir bonus_.
Again, verbs are related, on the one hand, to the agent; and, on the
other, to the subject upon which the action is exerted. A contrivance
similar to that now mentioned, serves to express this double relation.
The nominative case is appropriated to the agent, the accusative to the
passive subject; and the verb is put in the first second or third
person, to correspond the more intimately with both. Examples: _Ego amo
Tulliam_; _tu amas Semproniam_; _Brutus amat Portiam_. The other method
is by juxtaposition, which is necessary with respect to words only that
are not declined, adverbs for example, articles, prepositions, and
conjunctions. In the English language there are few declensions; and
therefore juxtaposition is our chief resource. Adjectives accompany
their substantives[89]; an adverb accompanies the word it qualifies; and
the verb occupies the middle place betwixt the active and passive
subjects to which it relates.
It must be obvious, that those terms which have nothing relative in
their signification, cannot be connected in so easy a manner. When two
substantives happen to be connected, as cause and effect, as principal
and accessory, or in any other manner, such connection cannot be
expressed by contiguity solely; for words must often in a period be
placed together which are not thus related. The relation betwixt
substantives, therefore, cannot otherwise be expressed than by particles
denoting the relation. Latin indeed and Greek, by their declensions, go
a certain length to express such relations, without the aid of
particles. The relation of property, for example, betwixt Cæsar and his
horse is, expressed by putting the latter in the nominative case, the
former in the genitive; _equus Cæsaris_. The like in English, _Cæsar’s
horse_. But in other instances, declensions not being used in the
English language, relations of this kind are commonly expressed by
prepositions.
This form of connecting by prepositions, is not confined to
substantives. Qualities, attributes, manner of existing or acting, and
all other circumstances, may in the same manner be connected with the
substantives to which they relate. This is done artificially by
converting the circumstance into a substantive, in which condition it is
qualified to be connected with the principal subject by a preposition,
in the manner above described. For example, the adjective _wise_ being
converted into the substantive _wisdom_, gives opportunity for the
expression “a man _of_ wisdom,” instead of the more simple expression,
_a wise man_. This variety in the expression, enriches language. I
observe beside, that the using a preposition in this case, is not always
a matter of choice. It is indispensable with respect to every
circumstance that cannot be expressed by a single adjective or adverb.
To pave the way for the rules of arrangement, one other preliminary must
be discussed, which is, to explain the difference betwixt a natural
style, and that where transposition or inversion prevails. There are, it
is true, no precise boundaries betwixt these two; for they run into each
other, like the shades of different colours. No person however is at a
loss to distinguish them in their extremes: and it is necessary to make
the distinction; because though some of the rules I shall have occasion
to mention are common to both, yet each has rules peculiar to itself. In
a natural style, relative words are by juxtaposition connected with
those to which they relate, going before or after, according to the
peculiar genius of the language. Again, a circumstance connected by a
preposition, follows naturally the word with which it is connected. But
this arrangement may be varied, when a different order is more
beautiful. A circumstance may be placed before the word with which it is
connected by a preposition; and may be interjected even betwixt a
relative word and that to which it relates. When such liberties are
frequently taken, the style becomes inverted or transposed.
But as the liberty of inversion is a capital point in handling the
present subject, it will be necessary to examine it more narrowly, and
in particular to trace the several degrees in which an inverted style
recedes more and more from that which is natural. And first, as to the
placing a circumstance before the word with which it is connected, I
observe, that it is the easiest of all inversion, even so easy as to be
consistent with a style that is properly termed natural. Witness the
following examples.
In the sincerity of my heart, I profess, _&c._
By our own ill management, we are brought to so low an ebb of
wealth and credit, that, _&c._
On Thursday morning there was little or nothing transacted in
Change-alley.
At St Bride’s church in Fleetstreet, Mr Woolston, (who writ against
the miracles of our Saviour), in the utmost terrors of conscience
made a public recantation.
The interjecting a circumstance betwixt a relative word and that to
which it relates, is more properly termed inversion; because, by a
violent disjunction of words intimately connected, it recedes farther
from a natural style. But this liberty has also degrees; for the
disjunction is more violent in some cases than in others. This I must
also explain: and to give a just notion of the difference, I must crave
liberty of my reader to enter a little more into an abstract subject,
than would otherwise be my choice.
In nature, though a substance cannot exist without its qualities, nor a
quality without a substance; yet in our conception of these, a material
difference may be remarked. I cannot conceive a quality but as belonging
to some subject: it makes indeed a part of the idea which is formed of
the subject. But the opposite holds not. Though I cannot form a
conception of a subject devoid of all qualities, a partial conception
may however be formed of it, laying aside or abstracting from any
particular quality. I can, for example, form the idea of a fine Arabian
horse without regard to his colour, or of a white horse without regard
to his size. Such partial conception of a subject, is still more easy
with respect to action or motion; which is an occasional attribute only,
and has not the same permanency with colour or figure. I cannot form an
idea of motion independent of a body; but there is nothing more easy
than to form an idea of a body at rest. Hence it appears, that the
degree of inversion depends greatly on the order in which the related
words are placed. When a substantive occupies the first place, we cannot
foresee what is to be said of it. The idea therefore which this word
suggests, must subsist in the mind at least for a moment, independent of
the relative words afterward introduced; and if it can so subsist, that
moment may without difficulty be prolonged by interjecting a
circumstance betwixt the substantive and its connections. Examples
therefore of this kind, will scarce alone be sufficient to denominate a
style inverted. The case is very different, where the word that occupies
the first place, denotes a quality or an action; for as these cannot be
conceived without a subject, they cannot without greater violence be
separated from the subject that follows. And for that reason, every such
separation by means of an interjected circumstance belongs to an
inverted style.
To illustrate this doctrine examples being necessary, I shall begin with
those where the word first introduced does not imply a relation.
---- Nor Eve to iterate
Her former trespass fear’d.
---- Hunger and thirst at once,
Powerful persuaders, quicken’d at the scent
Of that alluring fruit, urg’d me so keen.
Moon, that now meet’st the orient sun, now fli’st
With the fix’d stars, fix’d in their orb that flies,
And ye five other wand’ring fires that move
In mystic dance not without song, resound
His praise.
In the following examples, where the word first introduced imports a
relation, the disjunction will be found more violent.
Of man’s first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste
Brought death into the world, and all our wo,
With loss of Eden, till one greater man
Restore us, and regain the blessful seat,
Sing heav’nly muse.
---- Upon the firm opacous globe
Of this round world, whose first convex divides
The luminous inferior orbs, inclos’d
From chaos and th’ inroad of darkness old
Satan alighted walks.
---- On a sudden open fly,
With impetuous recoil and jarring sound,
Th’ infernal doors.
---- Wherein remain’d,
For what could else? to our almighty foe
Clear victory, to our part loss and rout.
----Forth rush’d with whirlwind sound
The chariot of paternal Deity.
Language would have no great power, were it confined to the natural
order of ideas. A thousand beauties may be compassed by inversion, that
must be relinquished in a natural arrangement. I shall soon have an
opportunity to make this evident. In the mean time, it ought not to
escape observation, that the mind of man is happily so constituted as to
relish inversion, though in one respect unnatural; and to relish it so
much, as in many cases to admit a violent disjunction of words that by
the sense are intimately connected. I scarce can say that inversion has
any limits; though I may venture to pronounce, that the disjunction of
articles, conjunctions, or prepositions, from the words to which they
belong, never has a good effect. The following example with relation to
a preposition, is perhaps as tolerable as any of the kind.
He would neither separate _from_, nor act against them.
I give notice to the reader, that I am now ready to enter upon the rules
of arrangement; beginning with a natural style, and proceeding gradually
to what is the most inverted. And in the arrangement of a period, as
well as in a right choice of words, the first and great object being
perspicuity, it is above laid down as a rule, That perspicuity ought not
to be sacrificed to any other beauty whatever. Ambiguities occasioned by
a wrong arrangement are of two sorts; one where the arrangement leads to
a wrong sense, and one where the sense is left doubtful. The first being
the more culpable, shall take the lead, beginning with examples of words
put in a wrong place.
How much the imagination of such a presence must exalt a genius, we
may observe _merely_ from the influence which an ordinary presence
has over men.
_Characteristics, vol. 1. p. 7._
This arrangement leads to a wrong sense: The adverb _merely_ seems by
its position to affect the preceding word; whereas it is intended to
affect the following words _an ordinary presence_; and therefore the
arrangement ought to be thus.
How much the imagination of such a presence must exalt a genius, we
may observe from the influence which an ordinary presence merely
has over men.
The time of the election of a poet-laureat being now at hand, it
may be proper to give some account of the rites and ceremonies
anciently used at that solemnity, and only discontinued through the
neglect and degeneracy of later times.
_Guardian._
The term _only_ is intended to qualify the noun _degeneracy_, and not
the participle _discontinued_; and therefore the arrangement ought to be
as follows.
---- and discontinued through the neglect
and degeneracy only, of later times.
Sixtus the Fourth was, if I mistake not, a great collector of books
at least.
_Letters on history, vol. 1. let. 6._ _Bolingbroke._
The expression here leads evidently to a wrong sense. The adverb _at
least_, ought not to be connected with the substantive _books_, but with
_collector_, thus:
Sixtus the Fourth was a great collector at least, of books.
Speaking of Lewis XIV.
If he was not the greatest king, he was the best actor of majesty
at least, that ever filled a throne.
_Ibid. letter 7._
Better thus:
If he was not the greatest king, he was at least the best actor of
majesty, _&c._
This arrangement removes the wrong sense occasioned by the juxtaposition
of _majesty_ and _at least_.
The following examples are of the wrong arrangement of members.
I have confined myself to those methods for the advancement of
piety, which are in the power of a prince limited like ours by a
strict execution of the laws.
_A project for the advancement of religion._ _Swift._
The structure of this period leads to a meaning which is not the
author’s, _viz._ power limited by a strict execution of the laws. This
wrong sense is removed by the following arrangement.
I have confined myself to those methods for the advancement of
piety, which, by a strict execution of the laws, are in the power
of a prince limited like ours.
This morning when one of Lady Lizard’s daughters was looking over
some hoods and ribands brought by her tirewoman, with great care
and diligence, I employed no less in examining the box which
contained them.
_Guardian_, Nº 4.
The wrong sense occasioned by this arrangement, may be easily prevented
by varying it thus:
This morning when, with great care and diligence, one of Lady
Lizard’s daughters was looking over some hoods and ribands, _&c._
A great stone that I happened to find after a long search by the
sea-shore, served me for an anchor.
_Gulliver’s Travels, part 1. chap. 8._
One would think that the search was confined to the sea-shore; but as
the meaning is, that the great stone was found by the sea-shore, the
period ought to be arranged thus:
A great stone, that, after a long search, I happened to find by the
sea-shore, served me for anchor.
Next of a wrong arrangement where the sense is left doubtful; beginning,
as in the former sort, with examples of the wrong arrangement of words
in a member.
These forms of conversation _by degrees_ multiplied and grew
troublesome.
_Spectator_, Nº 119.
Here it is left doubtful whether the modification _by degrees_ relate to
the preceding member or to what follows. It should be,
These forms of conversation multiplied by degrees.
Nor does this false modesty expose us _only_ to such actions as are
indiscreet, but very often to such as are highly criminal.
_Spectator_, Nº 458.
The ambiguity is removed by the following arrangement.
Nor does this false modesty expose us to such actions only as are
indiscreet, _&c._
The empire of Blefuscu is an island situated to the north-east side
of Lilliput, from whence it is parted _only_ by a channel of 800
yards wide.
_Gulliver’s Travels, part 1. chap. 5._
The ambiguity may be removed thus:
---- from whence it is parted by a channel
of 800 yards wide only.
In the following examples the sense is left doubtful by a wrong
arrangement of members.
The minister who grows less by his elevation, _like a little statue
placed on a mighty pedestal_, will always have his jealousy strong
about him.
_Dissertation upon parties, dedication._ _Bolingbroke._
Here, so far as can be gathered from the arrangement, it is doubtful,
whether the object introduced by way of simile, relate to what goes
before or to what follows. The ambiguity is removed by the following
arrangement.
The minister who, like a little statue placed on a mighty pedestal,
grows less by his elevation, will always, _&c._
Since this is too much to ask of freemen, nay of slaves, _if his
expectation be not answered_, shall he form a lasting division upon
such transient motives?
_Ibid._
Better thus:
Since this is too much to ask of freemen, nay of slaves, shall he,
if his expectation be not answered, form, _&c._
Speaking of the superstitious practice of locking up the room where a
person of distinction dies:
The knight, seeing his habitation reduced to so small a compass,
and himself in a manner shut out of his own house, _upon the death
of his mother_ ordered all the apartments to be flung open, and
exorcised by his chaplain.
_Spectator_, Nº 110.
Better thus:
The knight, seeing his habitation reduced to so small a compass,
and himself in a manner shut out of his own house, ordered, upon
the death of his mother, all the apartments to be flung open.
Speaking of some indecencies in conversation:
As it is impossible for such an irrational way of conversation to
last long among a people that make any profession of religion, or
show of modesty, _if the country-gentlemen get into it_, they will
certainly be left in the lurch.
_Spectator_, Nº. 119.
The ambiguity vanishes in the following arrangement.
---- the country-gentlemen, if they get into it, will certainly be
left in the lurch.
Speaking of a discovery in natural philosophy, that colour is not a
quality of matter:
As this is a truth which has been proved incontestably by many
modern philosophers, and is indeed one of the finest speculations
in that science, _if the English reader would see the notion
explained at large_, he may find it in the eighth chapter of the
second book of Mr Locke’s essay on human understanding.
_Spectator_, Nº 413.
Better thus:
As this is a truth, _&c._ the English reader, if he would see the
notion explained at large, may find it, _&c._
A woman seldom asks advice before she has bought her
wedding-cloaths. When she has made her own choice, _for form’s
sake_ she sends a _conge d’elire_ to her friends.
_Ibid._ Nº 475.
Better thus:
---- she sends for form’s sake a _conge d’elire_ to her friends.
And since it is necessary that there should be a perpetual
intercourse of buying and selling, and dealing upon credit, _where
fraud is permitted or connived at, or hath no law to punish it_,
the honest dealer is always undone, and the knave gets the
advantage.
_Gulliver’s Travels, part 1. chap. 6._
Better thus:
And since it is necessary that there should be a perpetual
intercourse of buying and selling, and dealing upon credit, the
honest dealer, where fraud is permitted or connived at, or hath no
law to punish it, is always undone, and the knave gets the
advantage.
From these examples, the following observation will readily occur, that
a circumstance ought never to be placed betwixt two capital members of a
period; for by such situation it must always be doubtful, so far as we
gather from the arrangement, to which of the two members it belongs.
Where it is interjected, as it ought to be, betwixt parts of the member
to which it belongs, the ambiguity is removed, and the capital members
are kept distinct, which is a great beauty in composition. In general,
to preserve members distinct which signify things distinguished in the
thought, the sure method is, to place first in the consequent member
some word that cannot connect with what precedes it.