"The usual acceptation takes profit and pleasure for two different things; and not only calls the followers or votaries of them by the several names of busy and idle men; but distinguishes the faculties of mind that are conversant about them, calling the operations of the first, wisdom, and of the other, wit: which is a Saxon word, used to express what the Spaniards and Italians call ingenio, and the French esprit, both from the Latin; though I think wit more particularly signifies that of poetry, as may occur in remarks on the Runic language." There is here crowded into one sentence abundant matter for three.

(3.) To avoid excess of parenthetical clauses.

(4.) Not to add members after a full and perfect close. Temple says of Fontenelle, "He falls so grossly into the censure of the old poetry, and preference of the new, that I could not read his strains without indignation; which no quality among men is so apt to raise in me as self-sufficiency." This last clause is an extraneous addition to the sentence, which is naturally closed at indignation.

Such superadded members aggravate the natural looseness of English sentences.

156. Clauses of Consequence, of Explanation, of Iter ation, of Exemplification, of Qualification, and Obverse Clauses, are often separated by a semicolon or colon from the main statement, but do not necessarily mar the unity of the sentence.

"Now surely this ought not to be asserted, unless it can be proved; we should speak with cautious reverence upon such a subject." Here the second clause is a reason or justification of the main statement, and is properly included in the sentence. "Agriculture is the foundation of manufactures; the productions of nature are the materials of art." This last clause may be viewed either as explanation or as iteration. Examples under all the heads indicated are of frequent occurrence.

157. In description, and in narrative, it is often requisite to bring together in the same sentence several distinct facts. A sentence is then a smaller paragraph.

The only rule that can be observed in distinguishing the sentences, is to choose the larger breaks in the

sense.

The sentences, as well as other parts pointed off alike

THE SENTENCE BREAK.

137

(by the semicolon, the comma, &c.), should, as far as may be, have a co-ordinate value.

If every distinct statement were always followed by a full stop, the style would be disagreeably broken up into curt sentences. Moreover, we should lose the advantage of having a division intermediate between a single affirmation and a paragraph. Each sentence may contain a plurality of statements, more closely allied than the matter of two successive sentences.

The following is an example of what is meant. "By night sweet odors, varying with every hour of the watch, were wafted from the shore to the vessel lying near; | and the forest trees, brought together by the serpent tracery of myriads of strange parasitical plants, might well seem to the fancy like some great design of building, | over which the lofty palms, a forest upon a forest, appeared to present a new order of architecture." Here three separate facts are expressed, and the including of them in one sentence is justified by their being more closely allied in meaning to one another than to the sentence following-" In the back-ground rose the mist, like incense." Where the subject-matter consists of a great number of detached statements, we avail ourselves of all the grades of punctuation-comma, semicolon, and full stop-to mark, according to our best judgment, the degrees of connection or separation.

A larger extract from the same work (Helps' Spanish Conquest in America) will illustrate the peculiarities of the narrative sentence. The subject is an expedition of Ojeda along the American coast near the river Darien. He captured a number of Indians and a quantity of gold in the course of his voyage, and, disembarking, founded San Sebastian.

66

Ojeda sent his stolen gold and Indians home to Saint Domingo, in order that more men and supplies might in return be despatched to him; and he inaugurated the building of his new town by a foray into the territories of a neighboring Indian chief, who was reported to possess much gold." Here two separate facts are stated in one sentence, the author judging it

inexpedient to devote a sentence to each. The facts were closely related in time, and the separation of a semicolon is thought enough for them. The concluding clause is explanatory, but it is an explanation that also saves a narrative clause. It suggests the purpose of the expedition, namely, the search for gold, and at the same time accounts for it.

"This foray, however, produced nothing for Ojeda, and his men were soon driven back by clouds of poisoned arrows. Again two distinct facts are brought together, merely to avoid the multiplication of short sentences. In making the four statements now given, the writer has thought fit to introduce the sentence break between the second and the third. But a minute attention to the comparative degrees of connection of the four facts, might suggest the end of the first as the greater break; the second, third, and fourth, being all related to the one matter of the foray against the Indians.

The author now commences a new paragraph, to suit the transition to a new subject.

"How their people should be fed, seems always to have been a secondary consideration with these marauding governors; and, indeed, on like occasions in all periods of the world, it appears as if gold were supposed to be meat, drink, and clothing, the knowledge of what it is in civilized and settled communities creating a fixed idea of its universal power, of which people are not able to divest themselves." The second member of this sentence is a sort of generalization of the remark contained in the first, which is itself general observation prefatory to the next part of the narrative. Long as this second member is,— being a general maxim, burdened with a clause of explanation,— the writer did well to place it as an appendage to the previous clause, to which it ought to be kept in subordination. This will be seen still better from the next sentence.

"Famine now began to make itself felt at San Sebastian." This sentence joins on naturally to the first part of the foregoing, and would not have joined on so well to the second part, if that had been made a separate sentence. The author has thought fit to confine this sentence to a single fact. Its brev

ity makes a not unacceptable contrast to the length of the preceding.

"Just at this point of time, however, a supply from a most appropriate quarter came suddenly to the aid of the hungry in habitants of the new town." A single statement occupies this sentence also. It might have been coupled with the foregoing, although perhaps the present arrangement is preferable.

"There came in sight a vessel, which had been stolen from some Genoese by its commander Bernardino de Talavera, who was bringing it to the new settlement, as being a place where the title to any possessions would not be too curiously looked into." The first clause, "there came in sight a vessel,” contains the only fact essential to the narrative; but the author indulges in a little digression or by-plot, by informing the reader how the vessel came. Such digressions are unavoidable, and often proper in narrative; and one mode of keeping them from trenching on the main story is to make them subordinate members of a sentence whose principal is the main story. To erect them into distinct sentences, on the plea of unity, would be substituting a greater evil for a less.

"The supplies which this vessel brought were purchased by Ojeda, and served to relieve, for the moment, his famishing colony." The principal subject connects this sentence with the principal member of the foregoing-"There came in sight a vessel "—and the digressional explanation is no more heard of. The sentence itself contains two facts, so nearly allied that a comma is enough to divide them.

"But their necessities soon recommenced, and, with their necessities, their murmurings." The break between this and the foregoing is enough to make a distinct sentence. Its two component facts are, as in the former case, nearly related, and proper to be joined in the same sentence.

"The Indians also harassed them by perpetual attacks, for the fame of Ojeda's deeds was rife in the land, and the natives were naturally very unwilling to have such a neighbor near them." The change of subject requires a new sentence; the main clause is followed by two clauses of reason or expla

nation, so necessary as to be added on with merely a comma break.

"The Spanish Commander did what he could to soothe his people, by telling them that Enciso, the partner in his expedition and his alcalde, was coming; and, as for the Indians, Ojeda repelled their attacks with his usual intrepidity." Two distinct but connected facts are here given. The connection, however, is not of the closest kind; and two sentences would not have been improper.

"His Indian enemies, however, began to understand the character of the man they had to deal with, and, resolving to play upon his personal bravery, which amounted to foolhardiness, they laid an ambuscade for him." This has three statements, but the last contains the action, and the two others are merely preparatory. A good example of a narrative sentence.

"The Indians then feigning an attack, Ojeda rushed out with his wonted impetuosity, until he came within reach of their ambuscade, which concealed four bowmen." The circumstances here given all concur in describing a single action. The unity is perfect. The participial form of the commencing clause is skilfully chosen, so as not to interfere with the prominence of the principal subject, Ojeda.

"These discharging their poisoned arrows, one of them passed through his thigh; and this was the first time, strange to say, in his adventurous and riskful life, that he had been wounded." Again we have a unity in the action. The participial form commences, for the same reason as before; the second member is an explanatory clause of the periodic form, rightly included in the same sentence.

"No veteran, however, could have shown more indifference to pain in the remedy which he insisted upon adopting." This is properly made a new sentence; its structure, however, is not free from exception. The place of the principal subject is oc cupied by a subordinate word veteran; and there is an awkwardness in the connection of the parts. Better thus: "But the remedy that he insisted on adopting, showed him to sur pass any veteran in indifference to pain."