opposite inflection. But this is a case that does not at all come within Mr. Walker's rule,-"That the falling inflection affirms something in the emphasis, and denies what is opposed to it in the antithesis; and the rising affirms without such denial." Let this rule be tried by the foregoing examples, and it will be apparent that no antithesis by affirmation and denial can be made out in any of them, except by an effort of fancy. Take that one ending,"Knew ye not Pómpey ?" and instead of puzzling the mind to discover what is affirmed in this rising emphasis, and what is not denied in a supposed antithesis, how much easier is it to say, the case falls under that general law of interrogative inflection, which always inclines the voice upward.

But these illustrations need not be extended. The amount is, that generally the weaker emphasis, where there is tender, or conditional, or partial enunciation of thought, requires the voice to rise: while the strong emphasis, where the thought is bold, and the language positive, adopts the falling slide, except where some counteracting principle occurs, as in the interrogative inflection just mentioned. Emphatic inflection varies according to those general laws of the voice which I have endeavoured to describe at some length, Chap. III. p. 42-65. For these varieties we may assign good reasons, in some cases; while in others we must stop with the fact, that such are the settled usages of elocution; and in others still, we can only say such are the instinctive principles of vocal intonation.* In all such cases, explanation becomes ob

* A technical sense of this word, seems indispensable.

scurity, if carried out of its proper limits. Beyond these, I can no more tell why sorrow or supplication incline the voice to the rising slide, while indignation or command incline it to the falling, than I can tell why one emotion flashes in the eye, and another vents itself in tears. Nor is it reasonable to demand such explanations on this subject, as are not expected on any other. The logician rests in his consciousness and his experience as the basis of argument; and philosophy no more requires or allows us to push our inquiries beyond first principles or facts, in elocution, than in logic.

23] In closing these remarks on emphatic inflection, the reader should be reminded that the distinction suggested, p. 43, between the common and the intensive inflection, applies to every part of the subject. As emphasis varies with sentiment in degrees of strength, it requires a correspondent difference in the force, the elevation of note, and the extent of slide, which distinguish important words.

24] Emphatic Clause.

Before I dismiss the article of emphasis, one or two points should have some notice, because they belong to the general subject, though not distinctly classed under the foregoing heads.

It will be readily perceived that the stress proper to be laid on any single word, to denote its importance, depends much on the comparative stress with which other words in the same sentence are pronounced. A whisper, if it is soft or strong, according to sense, may be as truly discriminating as the loudest tones. The voice

should be disciplined to this distinction, in order to avoid the common fault, which confounds vociferation with emphatic expression. Many, to become forcible speakers, utter the current words of a sentence in so loud a tone, that the whole seems a mere continuity of strong articulate sounds; or if emphatic stress is attempted on particular words, it is done with such violence as to offend against all propriety. This is the declamatory manner. The power of emphasis, when it belongs to single words, depends on concentration. To extend it through a sentence, is to destroy it.

But there are cases in which more than common stress belongs to several words in succession, forming an emphatic clause. This is sometimes called general emphasis. In some cases of this sort, the several syllables have nearly equal stress: thus;

Heaven and earth will witness,

IF-ROME-MUST-FALL,-that we are innocent.

In uttering this emphatic clause, the voice drops its pitch, and proceeds nearly in a grave, deliberate monotone.

In other cases, such a clause is to be distinguished from the rest of the sentence, by a general increase of force; and yet its words retain a relative difference among themselves, in quantity, stress, and inflection. This appears in the indignant reply of the youthful Pitt, to his aged accuser in debate ;

But youth, it seems, is not my only crime; I have been accused,-of acting a THEATRICAL part.

And afterwards, arraigning the ministry, he said,

As to the present gentlemen,-I cannot give them my confi

dence. Pardon me, gentlemen,-confidence is a plant of SLOW growth.

In both these cases the emphatic thought belongs to the whole clause, as marked, requiring a grave under-tone; but one word in each must have more stress than the rest, and a note somewhat higher.

The want of proper distinctions as to the emphatic clause, occasioned, if I mistake not, the difference of opinion between Garrick and Johnson respecting the seat of emphasis in the ninth commandment; "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Garrick laid the stress on shalt, to express the authority of the precept; Johnson on not, to express its negative character. But clearly both are wrong, for in neither of these respects is this command to be distinguished from others with which it is connected. And if we place the stress on false or on neighbor, still an antithetic relation is suggested, which does not accord with the design of the precept. Now let it be ob→ served, that here is a series of precepts forbidding certain sins against man, our neighbor. Each of these is introduced with the prohibitory phrase, "thou shalt not," and then comes the thing forbidden; in the sixth, kill;—in the eighth, steal;-in the ninth, "bear false witness." This shows the point of emphatic discrimination. In the latter case, the stress falls not on a single word, but on a clause, the last word of this clause, however, in the present case, demanding more stress than either of the others.

One more example may make this last remark still plainer. Suppose Paul to have said merely, "I came not to baptize, but to preach." The contrast expressed

limits the emphasis to two words. But take the whole sentence as it is in Paul's language, "I came not to baptize, but to preach the GOSPEL;"--and you have a contrast between an emphatic word, and an emphatic clause. And though the sense is just as before, you must change the stress in this clause from preach to gospel, or you utter nonsense. If you retain the stress on preach, the paraphrase is "I came not to baptize the gospel, but to preach the gospel."

DOUBLE EMPHASIS.

This is always grounded on antithetic relation, expressed in pairs of contrasted objects. It will be sufficiently illustrated by a very few examples.

The young are slaves to novelty, the old to custom.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

There is but one remark, which is important to be made in this case. In such a reduplication of emphasis, its highest effect is not to be expected. In attempting to give the utmost significance to each of the terms standing in close succession, we are in danger of diminishing the amount of meaning expressed by the whole. The only rule that can be adopted is so to adjust the stress and inflection of voice on the different terms as shall most clearly, and yet most agreeably convey the sense of the entire passage.