Contemporary scholars of nationalism agree that does not constitute a necessary and sufficient criterion of nationality any more than religion or territory. (1) They usually ascribe belief that a national expresses unique character of a people and therefore is nation made manifest to Johannes Gottfried Herder and to German thought, which inspired nationalist movements in Germany and in Eastern Europe. (2) Herder, actually, linked of language (Sprachgeist) with soul of people (Volksseele) and did not refer to nation. (3) It was Johann Gottlieb Fichte, in his Reden an die deutsche Nation (1807-1808), who translated Herder's ideas into incendiary political arguments, and then Wilhelm von Humboldt who linked two concepts of spirit of nation and spirit of (Uber die Verschiedenheiten des menschlichen Sprachbaues, 1827-1829). (4) Yet many of German Romantic arguments were anticipated in a series of exchanges between Italian and French intellectuals (frequently called Orsi--Bouhours controversy) (5) at least one generation before Herder. In these exchanges, explanations of of language (genie de la langue) shifted from internal definitions (phonetics, syntax, and idioms) originating in Renaissance, to external causes (climate, politics) and, in particular, to national character. (6) For first time, relationship between of language (genie de la langue) and of nation--a fundamental paradigm of linguistic nationalism--was extensively articulated and used with polemical, often explicitly chauvinistic intentions. Stretching throughout eighteenth and into first decades of nineteenth century, discussion on genius not only articulated nascent arguments of linguistic nationalism but also shaped several issues that were applied to later definitions of nation. (7) I believe, therefore, that study of national character, of its formation and uses not only in Germany but also in France and Italy, (8) should include an understanding of earlier notion of genius of and of how two concepts (national character and genius of language) merged into core of discussion. (9) Here, I shall concentrate on a specific aspect of French-Italian debate, that is controversy about hyperbaton (inversion), or use of an unexpected word order characterized by Longinus as truest mark of passion (10)--a figure able both to express and to evoke emotions. In order to establish place of Dominique Bouhours, a Jesuit lexicographer and a member of Academie Francaise, and that of Neapolitan philosopher Giambattista Vico in context of debate on genius, I shall discuss their views on emotive function of utterance and analyze political implications of their positions. (11) The controversy over hyperbaton may seem to be an overly specific and 'technical' issue, however it articulates on a fundamental level clash of opposite ideas about nature of language, conflict of different traditions of rhetoric and, of singular interest to modern observer, it provides a vivid example of how notion of genius of came to shape idea of national character. In this controversy, sets of complementary propositions concerning origins and boundaries--that is essential elements of national identity formation (12)--are developed. Moreover, in true nationalistic fashion, a few cultural features, mostly mediated through literature and perceived as negative within one nation's system of belief are selected as representative of the other nation and employed to prove its inferiority. (13) It turns out that disputes concerning hyperbaton are ultimately used to support claims of superiority of this or that and through language, superiority of this or that nation. In last quarter of seventeenth century, several treatises concerned with genius of French appeared in France. …