these two different inflections of voice are the most marking and significant distinctions of speech.

As a specimen of the utility of these distinctions of emphasis and inflection, we may observe, that a difference of character may express the different degrees of force with which every word is pronounced, and a different accent may show what inflection each of these forces must adopt. Thus in the following example:

Exercise and temperance strengthen éven án INDIFFERENT constitution.

Here we see a threefold distinction of force: the word indifferent is emphatical, and has the greatest stress; the words exercise, temperance, and strengthen, have a lesser degree of force; and the words and, even, an, and constitution, have a still smaller degree of stress, and may be said to be absolutely feeble: and these different forces are diversified by the difference of inflection, as marked in the example. But although, in certain critical cases, where the sense of an author is difficult to point out, all these three distinctions may greatly assist us in conveying the exact pronunciation; yet, in general, it will be quite sufficient to mark the emphatick word with small Italicks, and the rest with Roman letters, without entering into the distinction of the feeble words from those that have a secondary force: which feeble words, if necessary to be pointed out, may be denoted by the small Roman letter, and their different inflections by a different accent.

Those who wish to see this notation more distinctly delineated, may consult the RHETORICAL GRAMMAR; where, it is presumed, they will find the fullest satisfaction respecting the relative force of unac cented words.

Theory of Emphatick Inflection.

HAVING thus endeavoured to give a clear and distinct idea of the two different kinds of emphasis, and attempted to prove, that emphasis, properly so called, always supposes contradistinction or antithesis, either expressed or understood; it will now be necessary to show that every emphatick word, properly so called, is as much distinguished by the inflection it adopts, as by the force with which it is pronounced.

We have seen already, that where there is no emphasis, the most significant words in a sentence adopt a different inflection of voice for the sake of variety and harmony: for, provided the sentence reads well, it is of no consequence on which words the different inflections are placed. Thus in the following sentence:

Èxercise and témperance strengthen the constitution.

In this sentence, I say, the words temperance and strengthen have the rising, and exercise and constitution the falling inflection; but if this sentence were lengthened by the addition of another member, we should find the inflections shift their places. Thus in the following sentence:

Exercise and temperance strengthen the constitútion and sweeten the enjoyments of life.

Here, I say, the words exercise and constitution have the rising, and temperance and strengthen the falling inflection, as most agreeable to the harmony of the whole sentence: but if a word really emphatical had been in the first sentence, no additional

member would have obliged it to alter its inflection, Thus in the following sentence?

Exercise and témperance strengthen even an indifferent con

stitution.

Here the word indifferent, which is really emphatical, has the falling inflection; and this inflection it will still preserve, though we lengthen the sentence in imitation of the former by an additional member. For example:

Éxercise and temperance strengthen even an indifferent constitútion, and supply' in some measure the imperfections of nature.

Here we find that, however the inflection may change place on the rest of the words, the word indifferent must always have the falling inflection, or the sense of the sentence will not be brought perfectly out. In the same manner we may observe, that the same word in another sentence, when it requires the rising inflection, cannot alter that inflection to the falling, without injuring the sense. Thus in the following sentence:

He that has but an indifferent constitution ought to strengthen it by exercise and temperance.

Here the word indifferent must necessarily have the emphasis with the rising inflection, whatever may be the inflection on the other words.

As a farther proof that emphatick words cannot alter their inflection, we need only attend to the pronunciation of a line in Milton, where two emphatick words are opposed to each other; speaking of Nimrod, he says

Hunting (and mèn not beasts shall be his game.) B. xii. v. 30.

In pronouncing this passage, we shall find every reader lay the falling inflection on men, and the rising on beasts, as giving them a contrary position, that is, pronouncing men with the rising, and beasts with the falling inflection, would soon convince us that the former arrangement is precisely what the sense demands.

From these observations this maxim arises, that as the emphasis of a word depends on the sense of a sentence, so the inflection of voice which this emphatick word adopts, depends on the sense likewise, and is equally invariable: from whence it will evidently follow, that where there are two emphatick words in the same sentence, the sense alone can decide which is to have the rising, and which the falling inflection of voice.

It has been already proved, that emphasis always implies antithesis; and that where this antithesis is agreeable to the sense of the author, the emphasis is proper; but that where there is no antithesis in the thought, there ought to be none on the words: because, whenever an emphasis is placed upon an improper word, it will suggest an antithesis, which either does not exist, or is not agreeable to the sense and intention of the writer. Here some new light seems to be thrown on the nature of emphasis, and a line drawn to distinguish emphatick words from others; but still we are at a loss for the reason why one emphatick word should adopt the rising inflection, and another the falling from the foregoing examples, it appears, that every emphatick word requires either the one or the other of these inflections, and that the meaning of an author entirely depends on giving each emphatick word its peculiar inflection. It does not seem therefore entirely useless, so far to inquire into the nature, or specifick quality, if I may be allowed to call it so, of these two emphatick inflections, as to be able to decide which we

shall adopt, where the sense of the author does not immediately dictate. Thus in a former quotation from Milton, when speaking of Nimrod, he says.

Hunting (and mèn not béasts shall be his game.)

Here I say, the ear and understanding are both immediately satisfied upon pronouncing men with the falling, and beasts with the rising inflection; but in another line of the same author, when speaking of Satan, he calls him,

The tempter ere th' accuser of mankind.

Here, I say, it is not quite so clear how we shall dispose of these two inflections on the two emphatick words tempter and accuser; and an inquiry into the nature of these inflections, so as to fix the peculiar import of each, may, perhaps, assist us in deciding with precision in this and similar instances.

It has been observed, that emphasis is divisible into two kinds, namely, into that where the anthesis is expressed, and that where it is only implied; or, in other words, into that emphasis where there are two or more emphatick words corresponding to each other, and that where the emphatick word relates to some other word, not expressed but understood; an instance of the first is this:

When a Persian soldier was reviling Alexander the Great, his officer reprimanded him by saying, Sir, you were paid to fight against Alexander, and not to rail at him. Spectator.

Here we find fight and rail are the two emphatick words which correspond to each other, and that the positive member, which affirms something, adopts the failing inflection on fight, and the negative member, which excludes something, has the rising inflection on rail.