Neither of those splits are really valid as is, if the meaning is to be retained.
The “with authors” clause as originally written is a continuation referring to what came before, but starting a new sentence that way suggests it will refer to what follows. Similarly, the “reflection of our times” clause is a restatement of what came before—an apposition. This could be done with a new sentence, but it would need a demonstrative pronoun to clarify that: “This is a reflection…”.
Better points for new sentences are where “and” joins clauses. For example:—
[…] thought and emotion, and this style, this grandiloquent mode of expression, […]
could easily become:—
[…]thought and emotion. This style, this grandiloquent mode of expression, […]
since the demonstrative back-reference is already present.
Neither of those splits are really valid as is, if the meaning is to be retained.
The “with authors” clause as originally written is a continuation referring to what came before, but starting a new sentence that way suggests it will refer to what follows. Similarly, the “reflection of our times” clause is a restatement of what came before—an apposition. This could be done with a new sentence, but it would need a demonstrative pronoun to clarify that: “This is a reflection…”.
Better points for new sentences are where “and” joins clauses. For example:—
could easily become:—
since the demonstrative back-reference is already present.