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;" "Go away;"" Will ye go away?" and "O that ye would go away;" there is properly no indicative 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 that ye would go a"way." 66 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 hyperbaton. 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 Such it is in the beginning of this similitude, 66 manner. 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, in+ Addison's Campaign. * See Hermes, Book I. chap, viii, dependently intelligible. The conjunction serves only to intimate that the reason or evidence of this judgment, 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 conse-. quence 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 tenacity. 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 writers 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 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 judgment, 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 rea son also on the side of the moderns. The personal pronouns do not presuppose the subject, whether person or thing, to be known, and, consequently, do no more than supersede the repetition of the name. 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. In 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. 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 Shakespeare'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, 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, that 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, Ì 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, Othello. 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 recurring often to the same conjunctive phrases. I do not deny that there are cases wherein the repetition 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 variety than in the use of such as are of higher quality. The very significance of the nobler parts doth, as it were, support their dignity; but since the attendance of the less noble is necessary, shift them oftener, obtrude not on us always the same individuals, and we shall have less leisure to criticise them, or to advert to their insignificance. The third remark I shall make on this subject is, that another useful expedient for answering the same end, is to vary the situation of the conjunction, wherever the |