impel us to mention their object in the first place. We might therefore conclude, à priori, that this would be the order in which words were most commonly arranged at the beginnings of Language; and accordingly we find, in fact, that, in this order, words are arranged in most of the ancient tongues; as in the Greek and the Latin; and it is said also, in the Russian, the Sclavonic, the Gaëlic, and several of the American tongues.

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 afterwards, 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:

Justum & tenacem propositi virum,
Non civium ardor prava jubentium,
Non vultus instantis tyranni,
Mente quatit solida.

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 & tenacem propositi "virum," though, undoubtedly, the capital object in the sentence, to be thrown into the last place.

I have said, that, in the Greek and Roman Languages, the most common arrangement is, to place that first which strikes the imagination of the speaker most. I do not, however, pretend, that this holds without exception. Sometimes regard to the harmony of the period requires a different order; and in languages susceptible of so much musical beauty, and pronounced with so much tone and modulation as were used by those nations, the harmony of periods was an object carefully studied. Sometimes, too, attention to the perspicuity, to the force, or to the artful suspension of the speaker's meaning, alter this order; and produce such varieties in the arrangement, that it is not easy to reduce them to any one principle. But, in general, this was the genius and character of most of the ancient Languages, to give such full liberty to the collocation of words, as allowed them to assume whatever order was most agreeable to the speaker's imagination. The Hebrew is indeed an exception: which, though not altogether without inversions, yet employs them less frequently, and approaches nearer to the English construction than either the Greek or the Latin.

All the modern Languages of Europe have adopted a different arrangement from the ancient. In their prose compositions, very little variety is admitted in the collocation of words; they are mostly fixed to one order; and that order is, what may be called the Order of the Understanding. They place first in the sentence, the person or thing which speaks or acts; next, its action; and lastly, the object of its

action. So that the ideas are made to succeed to one another, not according to the degree of importance which the several objects carry in the imagination, but according to the order of nature and of time.

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 that 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 mansuetudi"nem, tam inusitatam inauditamque clementiam, tantumque in summa potestate rerum omnium " modum, tacitus nullo modo præterire possum." (Orat. pro Marcell.)

The Latin order is more animated; the English more clear and distinct. The Romans generally arranged their words according to the order in which the ideas rose in the speaker's imagination. We arrange them according to the order in which the understanding directs those ideas to be exhibited, in succession, to the view of another. Our arrangement, therefore, appears to be the consequence of greater refinement in the art of Speech; as far as

clearness in communication is understood to be the end of Speech.

In poetry, where we are supposed to rise above the ordinary style, and to speak the Language of fancy and passion, our arrangement is not altogether so limited; but some greater liberty is allowed for transposition and inversion. Even there, however, that liberty is confined within narrow bounds, in comparison of the ancient Languages. The different modern Tongues vary from one another, in this respect. The French Language is, of them all, the most determinate in the order of its words, and admits the least of inversion, either in prose or poetry. The English admits it more. But the Italian retains the most of the ancient transpositive character; though one is apt to think it attended with a little obscurity in the style of some of their authors, who deal most in these transpositions.

It is proper, next, to observe, that there is one circumstance in the structure of all the modern Tongues, which, if necessary, limits their arrangement, in a great measure, to one fixed and determinate train. We have disused those differences of termination, which, in the Greek and Latin, distinguished the several cases of nouns, and tenses of verbs; and which, thereby, pointed out the mutual relation of the several words in a sentence to one another, though the related words were disjoined, and placed in different parts of the sentence. This is an alteration in the structure of Language, of which I shall have occasion to say more in the next Lecture. One obvious effect of it is, that we have now, for the most part, no way left us to shew the close relation of any two words to each other in

meaning, but by placing them close to one another in the period. For instance, the Romans could, with propriety, express themselves thus:

Extinctum nymphæ crudeli funere Daphnim
Flebant.

Because" Extinctum & Daphnim," being both in the accusative case, this shewed, that the adjective and the substantive were related to each other, though placed at the two extremities of the line; and that both were governed by the active verb Flebant," to which "Nymphæ" plainly appeared to be the nominative. The different terminations here reduced all into order, and made the connection of the several words perfectly clear. But let us translate these words literally into English, according to the Latin arrangement; "Dead the "nymphs by a cruel fate Daphnis lamented;" and they become a perfect riddle, in which it is impossible to find any meaning.

It was by means of this contrivance, which obtained in almost all the ancient Languages of varying the termination of the nouns and verbs, and thereby pointing out the concordance, and the government of the words, in a sentence, that they enjoyed so much liberty of transposition, and could marshal and arrange their words in any way that gratified the imagination, or pleased the ear. When Language came to be modelled by the northern nations who overran the empire, they dropped the cases of nouns, and the different termination of verbs, with the more ease, because they placed no great value upon the advantages arising from such a structure of Language. They were attentive only to clearness, and copious