can scarcely ever make use of transposition; who are constrained to give a signification, if not very perfect, at least very distinct, to each word of the sentence which the reader peruses; who are subjected to uniform and feeble constructions, in which the nominative is contiguous to the verb preceding the case governed; and who are perpetually embarrassed by the repetition or ambiguity of pronouns? The theory of our participles, too, is so obscure, our conjunctions are so insufficient, our cases, admitting we have any, so insignificant, that it becomes requisite, in writing, perpetually to recall the nominative, or the pronoun which represents it, and to sacrifice sublimity to perspicuity.* The ancients compared the period to a sling, which throws out the stone after many circuits.† * See remarks on the same subject in FENELON's Letter to the French Academy, § 5, p. 193. "With respect to the form or composition of sentences, Cicero distinguishes them into two sorts, called tracta, strait or direct, and contorta, bent or winding.* By the former are meant those whose members follow each other in a direct order, without any direct inflexion; and by the latter, those which, strictly speaking, are called periods. IIɛpíodos in Greek signifies a circuit or circle; and so the Latins called it circuitus and ambitus; by which they both mean a sentence consisting of corresponding parts, so framed that the voice, in pronouncing them, may have a proper elevation and cadency, and distinguish them by its inflexion. And as the latter part returns back and unites Orat., c. 20. Our period is none other than an inanimate diction, like the servile translation of a precise interpreter, who expresses literally and unskilfully ideas conceived in a foreign idiom.* with the former, the period, like a circle, surrounds and encloses the whole sense."-WARD'S System of Oratory, vol. ii., p. 345. * The remarks of the learned abbé respecting the imperfections of the French tongue are in a great measure applicable to the English, especially when compared with the greater liberty of transposition which the Latin language allowed, and in which Cicero particularly manifests that so much of its beauty and elegance consists. Dr. WARD's observations upon the point are as follows: 'There are two kinds of order in the construction of a sentence, one of which may be called natural, and the other artificial. We call that order natural when all the words in a sentence are so placed that they are connected with or follow each other in a grammatical construction. And it may properly enough admit of this name, as it is founded in the nature of a proposition, and the relation of the several words of which it consists to each other. And this seems agreeable to the natural way of conveying our thoughts, which leads us first to express the subject or thing of which some other thing is said, before the predicate, or that which is said concerning it; and with respect to both, as every idea succeeds another in the order of our conceptions, to range it in the same order when we communicate them to others. “Our language, in general, keeps pretty much to this method. But in one thing particularly it recedes from SECTION XXXIV. OF HARMONY OF STYLE. NEVERTHELESS, without this mearsurement of periods, style is flat and unharmonious. A Christian it; and that is, in placing adjectives, which denote the properties of things, before their substantives or subjects, whose properties they are: as when it is said, Evil communication corrupts good manners. And this we always do, except something follows which depends upon the adjective. So we say, He was a man eminent for his virtue, not an eminent man. "Artificial order, as it respects simple sentences, has little or no regard to the natural construction of words, but disposes them in such a manner as will be most agreeable to the ear, and best answer the design of the speaker. The Latins take a much greater liberty in this respect than we do, or the nature of our language will permit. Quintilian says that it is best for the verb to stand last when there is no particular reason to the contrary; and he gives this reason for it, 'because the force of the sentence lies in the verb.' They likewise separate such words as have an immediate relation between them, or dependance one upon another; and place any of them first or last, as they please. In short, their order seems in a manner arbitrary, if it does not break in upon perspicuity, to which they usually attend. But most of these things are unsuitable to the genius of our language. The Latin tongue commonly admits of a much greater variety in the transposition of members, as well as in that of single words, than suits with our idiom. Our composition is, in orator should endeavour to please his auditors by a melody which may make them more attentive to his this respect, much more limited and confined than the Latin. The natural order is certainly more plain and easy; but yet it must be owned that the other has its advantages, and those very considerable. The language both of the Greeks and Romans has more strength, as well as harmony, than any modern tongue, which is owing in a good measure to this liberty in their composition. For by giving their periods the finest turn, and placing the most significant words where they may strike the mind with the greatest force, at the same time they both delight the ear and excite the attention."-WARD'S System of Oratory, vol. i., p. 354-364. Dr. BLAIR makes the following apposite remarks upon this subject: "In the Latin language, the arrangement which most commonly obtains is to place first in the sentence that word which expresses the principal object of the discourse, together with its circumstances, and afterward the person or the thing that acts upon it. Thus Sallust, comparing together the mind and the body, Animi imperio, corporis servitio magis utimur; which order certainly renders the sentence more lively and striking than when it is arranged according to our English construction: We make most use of the direction of the soul and of the service of the body. "The Latin order gratifies more the rapidity of the imagination, which naturally runs first to that which is its chief object; and, having once named it, carries it in view throughout the rest of the sentence. In the same manner in poetry: instructions, and thereby render the allurements of art subservient to the success of his ministry. Justum et tenacem propositi virum, Non civium ardor prava jubentium, Mente quatit solida Our Every person of taste must be sensible that here the words are arranged with a much greater regard to the figure which the several objects make in the fancy than our English construction admits, which would require the Justum et tenacem propositi virum, though undoubtedly the capital object in the sentence, to be thrown into the last place. "An English writer, paying a compliment to a great man, would say thus: 'It is impossible for me to pass over in silence such remarkable mildness, such singular and unheard-of clemency, and such unusual moderation in the exercise of supreme power.' Here we have first presented to us the person who speaks. It is impossible for me;' next, what the person is to do; 'impossible for him to pass over in silence;' and lastly, the object which moves him so to do, 'the mildness, clemency, and moderation of his patron.' Cicero, from whom I have translated these words, just reverses this order; beginning with the object, placing that first which was the exciting idea in the speaker's mind, and ending with the speaker and his action. Tantam mansuetudinem, tam inusitatam inauditamque clementiam, tantumque in summa potestate rerum omnium modum, tacitè nullo modo præterire possum.—Orat. pro Marcell. "The Latin order is more animated, the English more |