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 several 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.

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 compara

*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.

tive, 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 any thing without the sentence. Consider the following examples: "If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments." "Tho' 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 dependence which the one has on the other. It is not even implied in the expression, that any thing 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 judgement, 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 judgement, purpose, or desire. They give indeed the expectation of such information, and thereby keep up the attention, till we hear what follows. No sooner are the words " ye shall perish" added, than we have the explicit declaration of a certain judgement or sentiment of the speaker. For this reason grammarians have justly remarked, that in every sentence there must be a verb in the indicative mood either expressed or implied. In all three exampless above given, we have it expressed in the second clause of their original form; the verb in the hypothetical part, and in that part which marks the intention, is properly in the subjunctive or potential. It matters not whether the mood be distinguished by inflection, arrangement, or particles. In commands, interrogations, and wishes, the indicative is not expressed, but implied, and by the idiom of the tongue suggested to the understanding with sufficient clearness. The interrogative, and the optative, as well as the imperative, are, in respect of sense, totally distinct from the two moods above mentioned; though in most languages distinguished only by particles or arrangement.§ Thus, though in these three sentences, "Go away,' "Will ye go away?" and "O that ye would go away," there is properly no indi

*Than.

If, tho', altho', when, unless, except.

That, so that, insomuch that, lest. § See Hermes, B. I. chap. viii.

cative expressed, yet it is so manifestly implied, that none who understands the language can be at a loss to perceive, that each of them fully enunciates a certain affection of the speaker, a command, request, or wish. They signify neither more nor less than "I command you to go away;"" I desire to be informed whether ye will go away ;" and "I wish ye would go away."

What hath been said of the conditional and intentional particles holds still more evidently of the comparative particle than, which as frequently it doth not even need to be followed by a verb in any mood, so it can never begin the sentence without a manifest hyperbation. The particle as is sometimes strictly a comparative conjunction. Such it is in these words, "As your fathers did, so do ye." In this case it falls under the same predicament with the conditional connectives. Sometimes it is equivalent to thus, and may be still called a comparative particle, as it intimates some resemblance in that which follows to that which preceded. But this is also effected by the copulatives likewise, and in like manner. Such it is in the beginning of this similitude,

As when an angel by divine command.*

In this case it evidently connects sentences. Again, the illative is perfectly adapted for connecting sentences. The inference itself may very properly be expressed in a proposition distinctly enunciated, and, therefore, independently intelligible. The conjunction serves only to intimate that the reason or evidence of this judgement, which may also be a distinct proposition, was assigned in the words immediately preceding. This reasoning holds, in like manner, with regard to the causal conjunction. The relation between the sentences is the same; the order only is inverted; as we have here the consequence before the cause. And I suppose it is too clear to need illustration, that there is nothing in the import of the words to hinder copulatives and disjunctives from connecting sentences as well as members, and members as well as sentences. Yet even among those that are alike fitted for both purposes, there is some difference in point of strength. From their very nature they do not all unite the parts with equal closeness. They are like cements which differ in their degrees of tanacity. Thus the illative conjunctions and the causal constitute a more intimate union than the adversative and the copulative. Again, that formed by demonstrative pronouns seems weaker than that effected by conjunctions. So much for the natural difference in the connectives resulting from the different import of the words.

That there is also a great, though arbitrary difference, arising from idiom, is unquestionable. In the best authors of antiquity we often meet with sentences that begin with a relative pronoun, answering to our who, whom, or which. By all the most eminent writers among the moderns, not only in English, but in other European tongues, this practice is now, I think, carefully avoided. It is

*Addison's Campaign.

name.

custom only that can make this difference. When the cause is purely natural, the effect will be found the same in all languages. Accordingly, what was observed above concerning the conditional, intentional, and comparative conjunctions, is equally applicable to every tongue. And if we consider abstractly the effect of the relatives, we shall find, that what follows the who, whom, or which, is often the enunciation of some judgement, purpose, or desire, which, as it may constitute a separate sentence, serves to vindicate from the charge of impropriety the usage of the ancients. Yet there is some reason also on the side of the moderns. The personal prououns do but presuppose the subject, whether person or thing, to be known, and, consequently, do no more than supersede the repetition of the There can be, therefore, no doubt of the propriety of beginning sentences with these. Whereas the relatives not only refer to something immediately said, that we may know the subject of discourse, but seem so closely to connect the part which follows with that which precedes, that the one makes, as it were, the description of either the nominative, or the regimen of the verb, in the other. this view, they may be said to create a union too close to subsist conveniently between different sentences. There is at least a risk, that they will give such an ambiguous appearance to the second, as to render it doubtful, whether it be a separate sentence, or a member of the foregoing. For this reason, the illative wherefore, as it includes the power of the pronoun which, doth not seem to be so analogically used by our writers, in connecting sentences, as in connecting members.

In

Again, as an irrefragable evidence that there is a difference in connectives arising purely from idiom, let it be observed, that we find it sometimes taking place among conjunctions of the same order. The causal because forms too close a union to subsist between separate sentences. The case is different with the causal for, though in every other respect synonymous. This latter particle is not adapted for uniting clauses which must necessarily be included in the same sentence. As an evidence that this distinction can be attributed only to custom, we may remark, that it is variable, differing in different ages. For instance, in Shakspeare's time, the causal particles seem to have been used promiscuously. We have at least in his writings several examples, in which he uses the particle for, where every writer at present would say because, as in the following passage :

Heaven defend your good souls, that ye think,

I will your serious and great business scant,
For she is with me."

Nay, even among the copulatives, which, of all the conjunctions, are the most vague in their application, there are some that use seems to have appropriated to the coupling of sentences, not of members, such as again, further, besides; and some to the uniting not of sentences so properly as of paragraphs, or even of larger portions of writing.

* Othello.

than commonly fall under that denomination, such as moreover, and furthermore.

The copulative and, on the contrary, some critics are for confining to the single purpose of uniting the parts within the sentence, and seem to imagine, that there is some impropriety in using it for combining sentences. But as in this opinion, from what hath been evinced above, it is evident they are not supported by any argument from the import of the words, this conjunction being naturally on the same footing with the other copulatives; so neither have they any plea from usage in its favour. The examples for the contested use, which might be produced from all the best authorities in the language, are innumerable. But though use alone, in matters of language, is ever held a sufficient reason why things should continue in the state wherein we find them, when there is no positive ground for an alteration, I shall, in the present case, where, indeed, I could never discover the vestige of a reason for change, produce two arguments on the opposite side against excluding this particle from a privilege it hath always heretofore possessed; arguments which, I hope, will appear satisfactory. First, being a monosyllable, it will, on a principle above explained, if not used too often, serve to smooth the current of the discourse; inasmuch as it will render the transition from sentence to sentence easier, than it is possible to render it when recourse is always had to connectives of greater length. Secondly, it adds one to the number of the copulatives, and consequently, (where variety is of importance, as it certainly is here, on a principle presently to be explained,) this particle, if not absolutely necessary, is at least convenient.

My second observation is, that one of the best expedients for preventing the connexives from becoming too conspicuous, is to avoid.the frequent recurrence to the same particles, especially if they consist of more than one syllable. And if so, with still greater reason must we avoid recurrring often to the same conjunctive phrases.

I do not deny that there are cases wherein the repetition even of a conjunction, like other rhetorical repetitions, may add to the energy of the expression. Thus when several successive sentences bear the same relation to one that preceded, or to one that is to follow, this containing the common cause, consequence, motive, or concomitant of what is signified in those, they may be ushered more emphatically by repeating the connexive than by varying it. The common relation gives a propriety to the figure. But such cases are rare and easily distinguished. As to those which usually occur to the composer, it may be asserted to hold universally, that nothing will contribute more to enfeeble the style, than frequently to recur to the same heavy conjunctions, or long connectives, whatever they be. The now, and, for, but, nay, nor, have this advantage from their brevity, that though often repeated, they pass almost unnoticed. But who, that hath any taste, can endure the incessant quick returns of the also's, and the likewise's, and the moreover's, and the however's, and the notwithstanding's? An excess in these is insupportable. It is a maxim in elocution that will not often be found to fail, that in the use of the more ignoble parts of speech, there is greater need of va