words with the same degree of force-which would be absurd or to run the risk of perverting the meaning of the author, by laying the emphases on the wrong words. The following sentence will exemplify this"O fools and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have written concerning me." If we perceive that the intention of our Saviour was to reproach his disciples for their backwardness in believing, we shall, in reading it, naturally lay the principal emphasis on the word "slow." But if we do not see that this was the object of the speaker, the chances are we shall lay the emphasis on one of the other words, and thus change or pervert the meaning. For example, if we lay the emphasis on "believe," it would imply that the disciples were reproached for believing; if on "all," then the inference would be that they might have believed some of the things which the prophets had written, but that it was foolish in them to believe all. If we lay the emphasis on "prophets," it would imply that they might have believed others, but that they were fools for believing the prophets; if on "written," the inference would be, that though they might have believed what the prophets had said, it was foolish in them to believe what they had written; and, finally, if we lay the emphasis on "me," it would imply that though they might have believed what the prophets had written concerning others, yet they were fools for believing what they had written concerning the Saviour.

Even in the most familiar sentences, illustrations of this may be found. The simple question, for example, "Do you ride to town to-day?" may, by varying the position of the emphasis, be made to suggest as many different meanings as it contains words. If we lay the emphasis on "you," we wish to ascertain from the person addressed, whether it is he or some other person that is to ride to town to-day; if on "ride," we mean to ask him whether he purposes to ride or walk; if on "town," our purpose is to inquire whether it is to the

town or to the country he means to ride; and, finally, if we make "to-day" the emphatic word, we wish him to say whether it is to-day or to-morrow he intends to ride to town. Even the preposition "to," if made emphatic, would imply, though obscurely, that we wished the person addressed to say whether he intended to ride quite as far as the town, or only part of the way.

Before passing from the subject of ACCENT, we shall show, by a few illustrations, the power which EMPHASIS has over it when the sense or meaning requires it :

He must increase, but I must decrease.

Neither justice nor injustice has any thing to do with the

matter.

What is done cannot be undone.

Religion raises men above themselves, irreligion sinks them below the brutes.

This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

To me it was far from being an agreeable surprise; on the contrary, it was a disagreeable one.

Thought and language act and react upon each other.

What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

I shall always make nature, truth, and reason, the measures of praise and dispraise.

A gentleman who was pressed by his friends to forgive his daughter, who had married against his wishes, promised to do so, but added, that he would have them remember that there was a difference between giving and forgiving.

In the preceding, and in all similar cases, the position of the accent is completely changed by the emphasis. The reason is obvious: the speaker wishes to draw the special attention of the person addressed to the contrasted parts of the words; and hence he pronounces those parts or syllables emphatically, the effect of which is, in such cases, to change the seat of the accent.

This transposition of the accent takes place also in words which have a sameness of termination, even though they may not be directly opposed in sense; as in the following examples:

Catiline was expert in all the arts of simulation and dissimulation; covetous of what belonged to others, lavish of his own. In this species of composition, plausibility is more essential than probability.

From what has been said with regard to emphasis, we may draw the following general conclusion. Whenever a person wishes to bring an idea prominently or forcibly under the notice of the person or persons whom he addresses, he will naturally and instinctively pronounce the word which expresses it with a corresponding degree of emphatic force. The degree or intensity of the emphasis will, of course, depend upon the importance of the idea to be expressed, the nature of the subject, and the feelings or emotions of the speaker. In some cases it will be slight, in others strong, and in others, vehement or energetic; and hence a good general division of emphasis, with regard to its intensity, might be into three degrees, namely, SLIGHT, STRONG, and VEHEMENT. Of course, there must be a great diversity in the degrees of emphasis, from the slight to the vehement; but the general divisions which we have suggested will be quite sufficient for practical purposes-and we have no other in view.

Though in all properly constructed sentences, every word is useful and necessary, yet in every sentence the relative importance of the words must be different. Articles, Prepositions, Conjunctions, and Auxiliary Verbs, for example, are less important in their significations than the words which they introduce or connect—as Nouns, Verbs, Adjectives, and Adverbs. And hence it may be laid down as a general rule, that the less important words in a sentence should be pronounced with less of force and distinctness than the more important words. And this, as we have seen, we always do in SPEAKING; for it is to the more important words that we naturally desire to draw the special attention of the person or persons whom we address, and not to the ancillary or subordinate words.

It may also be observed that Pronouns, though important parts of speech, should be classed, with regard to their pronunciation in a sentence, with the less important words, as Articles, Prepositions, and Conjunctions. The reason is obvious: no new idea is introduced by a Pronoun. It stands for, or represents, a word which has been mentioned before, and which is consequently already before the mind of the person addressed. Pronouns, therefore, should be always pronounced without emphasis, unless when some contrast or opposition is intended.* We shall illustrate this by a familiar sen

tence or two:—

If John is there, I will thank you to give him this bookthough, perhaps, I should give it to you, and not to him. You are right; it is to me you should give it. You think so, but I think differently; and so, I am sure, does he.

In the foregoing sentences, the pronouns printed in italic are emphatical, because they are antithetical, or opposed to each other; while the other pronouns, in the same sentence, should be pronounced without emphasis, because no contrast or opposition is intended.

In the same way, any of the less important parts of speech may become emphatical; as—

I told you to bring me the book, not a book. You were told to put the book on the table-not under it. It was and I said-not or.

From what has been said with regard to emphasis, it is evident that all antithetic or contrasted words are emphatic; and in fact, it is usual to consider such words only as emphatic. Mr. Walker, and his followers, for example, hold that in every case of emphasis there is an antithesis expressed or implied; and that it never

* Pronouns used as antecedents, and also relatives when their antecedents are not expressed, should obviously be pronounced with a certain degree of emphatic force; as, "He that runs may read." "Who seeks for glory often finds a grave.' "What man has done, man can do."

can be proper to give emphatic force to a word unless it stands opposed in sense to some other word expressed or understood.* But this is to take too narrow a view of emphasis. There are other sources of it besides contrast or antithetic relation. There may be absolute, as

The following is Mr. J. Sheridan Knowles's account of emphasis:"EMPHASIS is of two kinds, absolute and relative. Relative emphasis has always an antithesis expressed or implied: absolute emphasis takes place when the peculiar eminence of the thought is solely-singly considered.

'Twas base and poor, unworthy of a peasant,

To forge a scroll so villanous and loose,
And mark it with a noble lady's name.

Here we have an example of relative emphasis; for, if the thought were expressed at full, it would stand thus :-Unworthy not only of a gentleman, but even of a peasant.

'Twas base and poor, unworthy of a man,

To forge a scroll so villanous and loose,
And mark it with a noble lady's name.

Here we have an example of absolute emphasis; for, if the thought were expressed at full, it would stand thus:-Unworthy a being composed of such perfections as constitute a man." ." Mr. Knowles adds: "I apprehend, that, notwithstanding all that has been written upon the subject, the true definition of emphasis remains still to be discovered. The following are Dr. Porter's observations on the subject :Walker, and others who have been implicitly guided by his authority, without examination, lay down the broad position, that emphasis always implies antithesis; and that it can never be proper to give emphatic stress to a word, unless it stands opposed to something in sense.

66

The

theory which supposes this is too narrow to correspond with the philosophy of elocution. Emphasis is the soul of delivery, because it is the most discriminating mark of emotion. Contrast is among the sources of emotion: and the kind of contrast really intended by Walker and others, namely, that of affirmation and negation, it is peculiarly the province of emphasis to designate. But this is not the whole of its province. There are other sources besides antithetic relation, from which the mind receives strong and vivid impressions, which it is the office o vocal language to express. Thus exclamation, apostrophe, and bold figures in general, denoting high emotion, demand a correspondent force in pronunciation; and that, too, in many cases where the emphatic force laid on a word is absolute, because the thought expressed by that word is forcible in itself, without any aid from contrast.

"Angels! and ministers of grace.—defend us.'

Thus :

President of the Theological Seminary, Andover, United States.