CHAPTER III.

OF VIVACITY, AS DEPENDING ON THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE WORDS.

SECTION I.

OF THE NATURE OF ARRANGEMENT, and the PRINCIPAL DIVISION OF SENTENCES.

HAVING already shown how far vivacity depends either on the words themselves, or on their number, I come now, lastly, to consider how it is affected by their arrangement.

This, it must be owned, hath a very considerable influence in all languages, and yet there is not any thing which it is more difficult to regulate by general laws. The placing of the words in a sentence resembles, in some degree, the disposition of the figures in a historypiece. As the principal figure ought to have that situation in the picture which will, at the first glance, fix the eye of the spectator, so the emphatical word ought to have that place in the sentence which will give it the greatest advantage for fixing the attention of the hearer. But in painting there can rarely arise a doubt concerning either the principal figure, or the principal place; whereas here it is otherwise. In many sentences it may be a question, both what is the word on which the emphasis ought to rest, and what is the situation which (to use the language of painters) will give it the highest relief. In most cases, both of simple narration and of reasoning, it is not of great consequence to determine either point; in many cases it is impossible. Besides, in English, and other modern languages, the speaker doth not enjoy that boundless latitude, which an orator of Athens or of Rome enjoyed, when haranguing in the language of his country. With us, who admit very few inflections, the construction, and consequently the sense, depends almost entirely on the order. With the Greeks and the Romans, who abound in inflections, the sense often remains unalterable, in whatever order you arrange the words.

But, notwithstanding the disadvantage which, in this respect, we Britons labour under, our language even here allows as much liberty as will, if we know how to use it, be of great service for invigorating the expression. It is true, indeed, that when neither the imagination nor the passions of the hearer are addressed, it is hazardous in the speaker to depart from the practice which generally obtains in the arrangement of the words; and that even though the sense should not be in the least affected by the transposition. The temperament of our language is phlegmatic, like that of our climate. When, therefore, neither the liveliness of representation, nor the warmth of passion, serve, as it were, to cover the trespass, it is not safe to leave

the beaten track. Whatever is supposed to be written or spoken in a cool and temperate mood, must rigidly adhere to the established order, which with us, as I observed, allows but little freedom. What is said will otherwise inevitably be exposed to the censure of quaintness and affectation, than which, perhaps, no censure can do greater prejudice to an orator. But as it is indubitable, that in many cases both composition and arrangement may, without incurring this reproach, be rendered greatly subservient to vivacity, I shall make a few observations on these, which I purpose to illustrate with proper examples.

Composition and arrangement in sentences, though nearly connected, and, therefore, properly in this place considered together, are not entirely the same. Composition includes arrangement and something more. When two sentences differ only in arrangement, the sense, the words, and the construction, are the same; when they differ also in other articles of composition, there must be some difference in the words themselves, or, at least, in the manner of construing them. But I shall have occasion to illustrate this distinction in the examples to be afterwards produced.

Sentences are either simple or complex; simple, consisting of one member only; as this, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth;"* complex, consisting of two or more members linked together by conjunction; as this, "Doubtless thou art our father, | though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not."† In the composition of the former, we have only to consider the distribution of the words; in that of the latter, regard must also be had to the arrangement of the members. The members too are sometimes complex, and admit a subdivision into clauses, as in the following example, "The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib; but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider." This decompound sentence hath two members, each of which is subdivided into two clauses. When a member of a complex sentence is simple, having but one verb, it is also called a clause. Of such a sentence as this, "I have called, | but ye refused;"§ we should say indifferently, that it consists of two members, or of two clauses. || The members or the clauses are not always perfectly separate, the one succeeding the other; one of them is sometimes very aptly enclosed by the other, as in the subsequent instance: "When Christ (who is our life) shall appear; - then shall ye also appear with him in glory." This sentence consists of two members, the former of which is divided into two clauses; one of these clauses, "who is our life," being as it were embosomed in the other, "when Christ shall appear."

So much for the primary distinction of sentences into simple and complex.

* Gen. i. 1.

Isaiah, i. 3.

+ Isaiah, Ixiii. 16.
§ Prov. i. 24.

The words member and clause in English are used as corresponding to the Greek kwλov and xoμμa, and to the Latin membrum and incisum.

¶ Col. iii. 4.

SECTION II.

SIMPLE SENTENCES.

WITH regard to simple sentences, it ought to be observed first, that there are degrees in simplicity. “God made man," is a very simple sentence. "On the sixth day God made man of the dust of the earth after his own image," is still a simple sentence in the sense of rhetoricians and critics, as it hath but one verb, but less simple than the former, on account of the circumstances specified. Now it is evident, that the simpler any sentence is, there is the less scope for variety in the arrangement, and the less indulgence to a violation of the established rule. Yet even in the simplest, whatever strongly impresses the fancy, or awakens passion, is sufficient to a certain degree to authorize the violation.

No law of the English tongue relating to the disposition of words in a sentence holds more generally than this, that the nominative has the first place, the verb the second, and the accusative, if it be an active verb that is employed, has the third ;* if it be a substantive verb, the participle, or predicate of whatever denomination it be, occupies the third place. Yet this order, to the great advantage of the expression, is often inverted. Thus in the general uproar at Ephesus, on occasion of Paul's preaching among them against idolatry, we are informed, that the people exclaimed for some time without intermission, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians." Alter the arrangement, restore the grammatic order, and say, "Diana of the Ephesians is great;" and you destroy at once the signature of impetuosity and ardour resulting, if you please to call it so, from the disarrangement of the words.

66

We are apt to consider the customary arrangement as the most consonant to nature, in consequence of which notion we brand every departure from it as a transgression of the natural order. This way of thinking ariseth from some very specious causes, but is far from being just. "Custom," it hath been said, "becomes a second nature." Nay, we often find it strong enough to suppress the first. Accordingly, what is in this respect accounted natural in one language, is unnatural in another. In Latin, for example, the negative particle is commonly put before the verb, in English it is put after it; in French one negative is put before, and another after. If in any of these languages you follow the practice of any other, the order of the words will appear unnatural. We in Britain think it most suitable to nature to place the adjective before the substantive; the French and most other Europeans think the contrary. We range

* Let it be observed, that in speaking of English syntax, I use the terms nominative and accusative, merely to avoid tedious circumlocutions, sensible that in strict propriety our substantives have no such cases. By the nominative I mean always the efficient agent, or instrument operating, with which the verb agrees in number and person; by the accusative, the effect produced, the object aimed at, or the subject operated on.

+ Acts, xix. 28 and 34.

the oblique cases of the personal pronouns, as we do the nouns whose place they occupy after the verb; they range them invariably before, notwithstanding that when the regimen is a substantive, they make it come after the verb as we do. They and we have both the same reason, custom, which is different in different countries.

But it may be said, that more than this can be urged in support of the ordinary arrangement of a simple sentence above explained. The nominative, to talk in the logicians' style, is the subject; the adjective, or participle, is the predicate; and the substantive verb, the copula. Now, is it not most natural, that the subject be mentioned before the thing predicated of it? and what place so proper for the copula which unites them, as the middle? This is plausible, and, were the mind a pure intellect, without fancy, taste, or passion, perhaps it would be just. But as the case is different with human nature, I suspect there will be found little uniformity in this particular in different tongues, unless where, in respect either of matter or of form, they have been in a great measure derived from some common

source.

The Hebrew is a very simple language, and hath not that variety either of moods or of conjunctions that is requisite for forming a complicated style. Here, therefore, if any where, one would expect to find an arrangement purely natural. Yet in this language, the most usual, and what would with them therefore be termed the grammatical disposition of the words, is not the disposition above mentioned. In the historic style, or when past events are related, they commonly place the verb first, then the nominative, afterwards the regimen, predicate, or attendant circumstances.* The freedom

.חשמים זאת הארץ בראשית ברא אלהים את :active verb

.ויהי ערב ויהי בקר יום אהר,fifth verse

Thus the very first words of Genesis, a book even among the books of Scripture remarkable for simplicity of style, are an evidence of this in the The order is preserved exactly in the Vulgat. "In principio creavit Deus cœlum et terram.' That the same order is observed in disposing the substantive verb, appears from the The arrangement here is perfectly exhi bited in the Latin version of Junius and Tremellius, which is generally very literal. "Sic fuit vespera et fuit mane diei primi." Yet in English we should be apt to call the order in both passages, especially the last, rather unnatural. "In the beginning created God the heavens and the earth." "And was evening and was morning day first." The same thing might be illustrated in the pas sive verbs, in the neuter, and in the reciprocal, if necessary. Nothing therefore can be more evident, than that it is custom only which makes us Britons prefer one order of words and others another, as the natural order. I am surprised that a critic of so much taste and discernment as Bouhours (see his Entretiens d'Ariste et d' Eugene. 2. la langue Francoise,) should represent this as one of the excellences of the French tongue, that it follows the natural order of the words. It is manifest, from what has been said, that its common arrangement has no more title to be denominated natural, than that of any other language. Nay, we may raise an argument for confuting this silly pretence, from the very laws that obtain in this language. Thus, if the natural order require that the regimen should follow the active verb, their way of arranging the oblique cases of the pronouns is unnatural, as they always place them before the verb; if, on the contrary, the natural order require that the regimen should precede the governing verb, their way of arranging nouns governed by verbs is unnatural, since they always place them after the verb; so that, whichever be the natural way, they depart from it in the disposition of one or other of these parts of speech. The like may be urged in regard to the nominative, which, though for

which Greek and Latin allow on this article, renders it improper to denominate one order grammatical exclusively of others. I imagine, therefore, that perhaps the only principle in which on this subject we can safely rest, as being founded in nature, is, that whatever most strongly fixes the attention, or operates on the passion of the speaker, will first seek utterance by the lips. This is agreeable to a common proverb, which, perhaps, to speak in Shakspeare's phrase,* is something musty, but significant enough, "Nearest the heart, nearest the mouth." In these transpositions, therefore, I maintain, that the order will be found, on examination, to be more strictly natural, than when the more general practice in the tongue is followed.

As an irrefragable argument in support of this doctrine, it may be pleaded, that, though the most usual, which is properly the artificial order, be different in different languages, the manner of arranging, or, (if you like the term better,) of transposing, above specified, which is always an effect of vivacity in the speaker, and a cause of producing a livelier conception in the hearer, is the same in all languages. It is for this reason, amongst others, that I have chosen to take most of my examples on this topic, not from any original performance in English, but from the common translation of the Bible, and shall here observe once for all, that, both in the quotations already made, and those hereafter to be made, our translators have exactly followed the order of the original. And, indeed, all translators of any taste, unless when cramped by the genius of the tongue in which they wrote, have in such cases done the same. It may be

the most part it go before the active verb, in certain cases follows it. This happens frequently when the verb is preceded by the oblique case of the relative, as in this sentence: "Le retardement, que souffre le lecteur, le rend plus attentif." And even in placing their adjectives, wherever use hath made excep. tions from the general rule, it has carried the notion of what is natural along with it. They would call it as unnatural to say homme jeune, as to say gardien ange. All therefore that can be affirmed with truth is, that the French adhere more inviolably than other nations to the ordinary arrangement established in the language. But this, as I hope to evince in the sequel, is one of the greatest imperfections of that tongue. The ease with which the Italian admits either order in the personal pronouns, especially in poetry, adds often to the harmony and the elegance, as well as to the vivacity of the expression, as in these lines of Metastasio's Artaserse.

Sallo amor, lo sanno i numi;
Il mio core, il tuo lo sa.

Bouhours, in the dialogue above mentioned, has dropt the character of critic and philosopher, for that of encomiast. He talks like a lover about his mistress. He sees neither blemish nor defect. All is beauty and excellence. For my part, if I were to prove the inferiority of French to Italian and Spanish, the two languages with which he compares it, I should not desire other or better topics for evincing the point, than the greater part of those which he has employed, in my judgement very unsuccessfully, for the contrary purpose.

* Hamlet.

+ Gr. Μεγαλη η Αρτεμις Εφεσίων. Lat. Vulg. Erasm. "Magna Diana Ephesiorum " Castal. Beza, "Magna est Diana Ephesiorum." Ital. Diodati, "Grande e la Diana degli Efesii." How weak in comparison is the French version of Le Clerc ! "La Diane des Ephesiens est une grande deese." How deficient that of Beausobre ! "La grande Diane des Ephesiens." How ridiculous that of Saci! "Vive la grande Diane des Ephesiens."