favours on his servants; or God heapeth favours on his ever liberal and faithful servants. This alteration of the arrangement of the word, is, in our language, a change in the construction of the sentence. In languages where adjectives and substantives have correspondent changes of termination, the reader may, in this way, most generally determine to which noun the adjective belongs; but in languages, as in the English, where adjectives have no change in their terminations, it is their arrangement, which must determine the nouns, with which they are to be connected. Hence then the caution may be given, To avoid ambiguity in the use of the adjective, let it be placed as near as practicable to the noun it is intended to qualify.

There is another case, in which there is danger of ambiguity in the use of adjectives. Sometimes, when two adjectives are used in connexion with the same noun, it is difficult to determine, whether they are designed to express different qualities belonging to the same thing, or qualities belonging to different things, but which are included under the noun as a generic term. This is illustrated in the following example :-"The ecclesiastic and secular powers concurred in those measures." Is it meant, that the powers which concurred, had both the qualities expressed by the adjectives, ecclesiastic and secular? or that one class of these powers was ecclesiastic and the other secular? The latter is no doubt the meaning of the writer; and it should have been expressed, "The ecclesiastic powers, and the secular, concurred in those measures."

In cases of this kind, the following rule should be observed: When the adjectives are designed to qualify the noun as expressing one thing, the noun should either precede or follow both adjectives; but when the adjectives are to be understood as qualifying different things included under the noun, the noun should follow the first

G

adjective, and may be repeated or not, after the second, as the harmony of the sentence may require; and in this latter case, when an article or preposition precedes the first adjective, it should be repeated before the second.

By this rule, the following version of a passage in the Bible, is to be censured :-"Every scribe, instructed into the kingdom of heaven, is like an householder, who bringeth out of his treasure things new and old." It should be, 66 new things and old.”

Instead of saying, "Death is the common lot of all, of good men and bad," the passage should be, "of good men and of bad."

Instead of saying, "How immense the difference between the pious and profane," it should be, "between the pious and the profane."

Example of the preposition :

"You will seldom find a dull fellow of good education, but (if he happen to have any leisure on his hands) will turn his head to one of those two amusements for all fools of eminence, politics, or poetry."

On first reading this sentence, we are led to connect politics and poetry with eminence, and make them all the objects of the preposition of. But the true meaning of the writer is expressed, by inserting to before the words politics and poetry. The ambiguity in this case arises from the omission of the preposition, which leads the mind to supply the copulative conjunction, and thus causes mistake. Hence the general remark may be made, that clearness in the construction of a sentence, is often secured by the repetition of a preposition; and the writer may be cautioned against its omission in such instances.

Example of the noun :—

“The rising tomb a lofty column bore."

Did the tomb bear the column, or the column bear the tomb? Ambiguities of this kind result from the

principles of our language, which makes no distinction in termination between the nominative and objective case, but leaves the construction to be determined by the arrangement of the words. In prose, therefore, such ambiguities will rarely occur, because the nominative will be placed before the verb, and the objective will follow it. But in poetry, where inversions are allowed, they will occur; and the danger of mistake can be guarded against only by the connexion, except in instances, where, the possessive pronoun being used, it may determine the nominative by referring to it as its antecedent; as in the following example:—

"And thus the son his fervent sire addressed."

Here the pronoun his most naturally refers to son as its antecedent, and thus determines, which is designed as the nominative, and which as the object of the verb.

3. I now proceed to mention the wrong position of adverbs and of adverbial phrases, as affecting the clearness of the sentence. Faults of this kind, it may be thought, are included under the head of the solecism or grammatical blunders, since the rules of syntax require, that adverbs should be placed near the words which they are designed to qualify. But such instances are of so frequent occurrence, that a few will be mentioned :

"The Romans understood liberty, at least as well as we."

In hearing this sentence read aloud, with the emphasis upon liberty, we should be led to connect the adverb with this word. But should the emphasis be placed on the adverb itself, we should connect it with the concluding part of the sentence. It is better to change the position of the adverb, so that there can be no danger of mistaking the true meaning of the writer. The sentence is more correctly constructed as follows:

"The Romans understood liberty, as well at least as we."

"Theism can only be opposed to polytheism or atheism." "Theism can be opposed only to polytheism or atheism."

"There is not perhaps any real beauty or deformity, more in one piece of matter, than in another."

"There is not perhaps any real beauty or deformity in one piece of matter, more than in another."

"Not only Jesuits can equivocate." "Jesuits can not only equivocate."

My design in stating this last example, is to show, that the same word, according to its position in a sentence, may be either an adverb or an adjective, and consequently an essential difference be made in the sense. The meaning of the sentence, as first given, is, that Jesuits are not the only persons who can equivocate. In the second form of the sentence, the meaning is, Jesuits can not only equivocate, but they can do other things in addition. Hence then may be inferred the need of additional caution in the use of those words, which may be regarded, either as adverbs or adjectives, according to their position in the sentence.

Adverbial phrases are to be considered as adverbs, and should be placed near those words whose meaning they are designed to affect. Much skill is requisite in so placing them, that the sentence may be easy and harmonious in its sound, and still retain its perspicuity. They are well compared to unsightly stones, which try the skill of the builder. As several examples will be given, when treating of complex sentences, the further notice of them here is omitted.

I now proceed to consider complex sentences, in reference to perspicuity, so far as this quality depends on skill in the use of language; and, without arranging the faults which are mentioned under distinct heads, I shall give instances of sentences that are deficient in perspicuity, and infer several cautions from the examination of such instances.

The following example is introduced, to show the in

jurious effect, on the smoothness and perspicuity of a sentence, of separating prepositions from the words with which they are grammatically connected.

EXAMPLE 1.“ Though virtue borrows no assistance from, yet it may often be accompanied by, the advantages of fortune."

It occurs to every one in reading a sentence, constructed in this manner, that the easy flow of expression is checked, and at the same time that we feel a sort of pain from the violent separation of two things, which ought to be united. In State papers, and legal instruments, where there is need of uncommon precision, sentences of this form may be allowed, but on other occasions they should be avoided.

EXAMPLE 2.-" 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."

"Having come to anchor, I was put on shore, where I was welcomed by my friends, and received with the greatest kindness."

Should the question arise, who, or what, is the predominant subject of discourse in the first form of this sentence, it may at first be difficult to answer. We, they, I, and who referring to friends, are, in different parts of this short complex sentence, made the governing or leading words. In the corrected form there is one leading word, and all the parts are constructed with reference to this. In this way, the sentence is made more simple, and the meaning is more obvious. Hence then we infer, that there should be one leading word or clause in every sentence, and that the different members and clauses should be so constructed and connected, as to be made subservient to this leading word or clause.

EXAMPLE 3.-" He had been guilty of a fault, for which his master would have put him to death, had he not found an opportunity to escape out of his hands, and fled into the deserts of Numidia." "and to flee into the deserts of Numidia."