Direct object before indirect object

In this article on the changes in English grammar the author says:

How untrammelled the English passive is, may be seen in the fact that, not content with a construction like “A book was given him,” the language has devised “He was given a book.”

Can one really interchange the direct and indirect objects to get "Someone gave a book him" instead of "Someone gave him a book"? Does it sound informally, humorously or incorrectly?

Someone gave a book him is incorrect, ungrammatical.

The sentence structure S-V-DO-IO

Someone-gave-a book-him.

has fallen out of favor, and we now expect the reverse positions of the direct and indirect objects:

Someone-gave-him-a book.

or that indirect object is replaced by the object of the preposition "to":

Someone-gave-a book-to him.

The Ngram viewer shows a steep drop in published uses of "gave it him" over the last two hundred years. But it wasn't always so. Here's some dialogue from All's Well That Ends Well.

KING     ... This ring, you say, was yours?
DIANA   Ay, my good lord.
KING     Where did you buy it? or who gave it you?
DIANA   It was not given me, nor I did not buy it.
KING     Who gave it you?
DIANA   It was not lent me neither.
KING     Where did you find it, then?
DIANA   I found it not.
KING     If it were yours by none of all these ways, how could you give it him?
DIANA   I never gave it him