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 falling inflection on fight, and the negative member, which excludes something, has the rising inflection on rail.

An instance of the latter kind of emphasis is this:

By the faculty of a lively and picturesque imagination, a man in a dungeon is capable of entertaining himself with scenes and landscapes, more beautiful than any that can be found in the whole compass of nature. Spectator, No. 411.

Here we find the word dungeon emphatical, but it has not any correspondent word as in the other sentence. If we pronounce this emphatick word with the falling inflection, the correspondent words which belong to this emphasis may be imagined to be nearly these, not merely absent from beautiful scenes; which, if added to the word dungeon, we should find perfectly agreeable to the sense suggested by the emphasis on that word; if we draw out this latter sentence at length, we shall find it consist of the same positive and negative parts as the former, and that the positive part assumes the falling, and the negative the rising inflection in both.

EXAMPLES.

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.

is

By the faculty of a lively and picturesque imagination, a man in a dungeon, and not merely absent from beautiful scenes, capable of entertaining himself with scenes and landscapes, more beautiful than any that can be found in the whole compass of nature.

Here then we are advanced one step towards a knowledge of what inflection of voice we ought to use on one kind of emphasis; for whenever the emphatick word points out a particular sense in exclusion of some other sense, this emphatical word adopts the falling inflection: the word fight, therefore, in the first, and dungeon in the last example, must necessarily be pronounced with the falling inflection, as they

tacitly exclude rail, and mere absence from beautiful scenes, which are in contradistinction to them.

Having thus discovered the specifick import of one emphatick inflection, it will not be very difficult to trace out the other: for as the import of these two inflections may be presumed to be different, we may, by analogy, be led to conclude, that as the emphatick word which excludes something in contradistinction to it, demands the falling inflection, the emphasis with the rising inflection is to be placed on those words, which, though in contradistinction to something else, do not absolutely exclude its existence. Let us try this by an example. Lothario, in the Fair Penitent, expressing his contempt for the opposition of Horatio, says,

By the joys

Which yet my soul has uncontroll'd pursu❜d,
I would not turn aside from my least pleasure,
Though all thy' force were arm'd to bar my way.

Fair Penitent, Act ii.

The word thy, in this passage, has the emphasis with the rising inflection; which intimates, that however Lothario might be restrained by the force of others, Horatio's force, at least, was too insignificant to control him and as a farther proof thatthis is the sense suggested by the rising inflection on the word thy, if we do but alter the inflection upon this word, by giving it the emphasis with the falling inflection, we shall find, that, instead of contempt and sneer, a compliment will be paid to Horatio; for it would imply as much as if Lothario had said, I would not turn aside from my least pleasure, not only though common force, but even though thy force, great as it is, were armed to bar my way and that this cannot be the sense of the passage, is evident.

Here then we seem arrived at the true principle of distinction in emphasis. All emphasis has an an

tithesis either expressed or understood; if the emphasis excludes the antithesis, the emphatick word has the falling inflection; if the emphasis does not exclude the antithesis, the emphatick word has the rising inflection. The grand distinction, therefore, between the two emphatick inflections is this; the falling inflection affirms something in the emphasis, and denies what is opposed to it in the antithesis, while the emphasis with the rising inflection, affirms something in the emphasis, without denying what is opposed to it in the antithesis: the former, therefore, from its affirming and denying absolutely, may be called the strong emphasis; and the latter, from its affirming only, and not denying, may be called the weak emphasis. As a farther trial of the truth of these definitions, let us examine them by a few additional examples.

When Richard the Third rejects the proposal of the duke of Norfolk to pardon the rebels, he says,

Why that, indeed, was our sixth Harry's way,
Which made his reign one scene of rude commotion:
I'll be in men's despite a monarch: no,

Let kings that fear forgive; blows and revenge
Richard III. Act 5.

For me.

In this example, we find several words emphatical; but the words despite and fear particularly so: these are always pronounced with the strong emphasis, which always adopts the falling inflection. In the foregoing definition of this emphasis, it is said, that the falling inflection affirms something in the emphasis, and denies what is opposed to it in the antithesis; and we accordingly find, that something is affirmed of the words despite and fear, and something is denied of the antithetick objects suggested by these words, which are favour and fearlessness; for the paraphrase of these words, when thus emphatical, would be, I'll be, not in men's favour, but in their

despite a monarch and let not me who am fearless, but kings that fear, forgive: by which we perceive the justness of the definition; for what is affirmed of the emphatick object is denied of the antithetick object; agreeably to the definition of the strong emphasis, or the emphasis with the falling inflection: another example will serve farther to illustrate the nature of this species of emphasis.

When Cato is encouraging his little senate to hold out against Cæsar to the last, he says,

Why should Rome fall a mòment ere her time?

The emphasis, with the falling inflection on the word moment, which is the inflection it is always pronounced with, suggests an antithesis opposed to a moment, which antithesis is a very short time; and the import of this emphasis at length, would be equivalent to this: Why should Rome fall not only a little, but even a moment before her time? By which paraphrase, we see the definition of this emphasis again exemplified; for something is affirmed of the emphatick object, and something is denied of the antithetick object.

The import of the emphasis with the rising inflection, may be exemplified by the following passage. Horatio, in the Fair Penitent, taxing Lothario with forgery, says,

'Twas base and poor, unworthy of a mán,
To forge a scroll so villainous and loose,
And mark it with a noble lady's name.

Act. ii.

The word man, in the first line of this example, is the emphatick object, which must necessarily have the rising inflection; because this inflection intimates, that something is affirmed of the emphatick, which is not denied of the antithetick object: the antithetick object to the word man, we may suppose to be some being of a lower order; and if this emphasis