in reading, which we should make emphatical in fpeaking; and though the importance of emphasis is infifted on with the utmost force and elegance of language, no affistance is given us to determine which is the emphatic word where feveral appear equally emphatical, nor have we any rule to diftinguish between thofe words which have a greater, and those which have a leffer degree of ftrefs; the fenfe of the author is the fole direction we are referred to, and all is left to the tafte and understanding of the reader.

One writer, indeed, the author of the Philofophical Inquiry into the Delivery of written Language, has given us a diftinction of emphafis into two kinds, which has thrown great light upon. this abftrufe fubject. This gentleman diftinguishes the ftrefs into emphafs of force, and emphafis of fenfe. Emphasis of "force," he tells us, "is that ftrefs we lay on "almost every fignificant word; emphafis of

fenfe, is that ftrefs we lay on one or two "particular words, which diftinguishes them "from all the reft in the fentence." "The for"mer ftrefs," he obferves, "is variable, ac"cording to the conception and taste of the "reader, and cannot be reduced to any certain "rule:" "the latter," he says, "he fays," is deter"mined by the fénfe of the author, and is always fixed and invariable." This distinction, it must be owned, is, in general, a very just one; and a want of attending to it, has occafioned great confufion in this fubject, even in our best writers. They perceived, that befides those words which were ftrongly emphatical, there were many others that had a ftrefs greatly

fuperior to the particles and lefs fignificant words, and these they jumbled together under the general term emphafis. Thus when the emphatical words were to be marked by being printed in a different character, we find in feveral of the modern productions on the art of reading, that fometimes more than half of the words are printed in Italics, and confidered as equally emphatical. The wrong tendency of fuch a practice is fufficiently obvious, but its origin was never pointed out till the publication of the effay above mentioned. This must be allowed to have thrown confiderable light on the fubject; and it is by the affistance which this author has given, that I fhall endeavour to pufh my inquiries into emphafis ftill farther than he has done: I fhall not only establish the diftinction he has laid down, but attempt to draw the line between thefe two kinds of emphafis, fo as to mark more precifely the boundaries of each. To this diftinction of emphafis, I fhall add another: I fhall make a distinction of each into two kinds, according to the inflexion of voice they adopt; which, though of the utmost importance in conveying a juft idea of emphafis, has never been noticed by any of our writers on the fubject. This diftinction of emphasis arifes naturally from the obfervations already laid down, on the rifing and falling inflexion; we have feen the importance of attending to thefe two inflexions in the feveral parts, and at the end of a sentence; and it is prefumed, the utility of attending to the fame inflexions, when applied to emphasis, will appear no less evident and unquestionable.

But before we enter into this diftinction of

emphatic inflexion, it may not be improper to fhow more precifely the diftinction of emphafis, into that which arifes from the peculiar sense of one or two words in a fentence, and that which arifes from the greater importance of the nouns, verbs, and other fignificant words, than of connectives and particles. And, firft, let us examine fome paffages where only the latter kind of emphafis is found; this emphasis, if it may be fo called, takes place on almost every word in a sentence, but the articles, prepofitions, and smaller parts of fpeech; and by pronouncing these feebly, we give a force to the other words, that is commonly, but improperly, styled emphasis.

Thus, in pronouncing the following fentence in the Spectator:

Gratian very often recommends the fine taste as the utmost perfection of an accomplished man. Spectator, No 409. We may perceive a very evident difference in the force with which thefe words are pronounced: the article the, the conjunction and particle as the, and the prepofition and article of an, are very diftinguishable from the reft of the words by a lefs forcible pronunciation; and this lefs forcible pronunciation on the smaller words, raises the others to fome degree of emphafis. If we pronounce the next fentence properly, we shall find several other words fink into an obfcurity of the fame kind, and by their feebleness a comparative degree of force thrown on the rest of the words.

As this word arifes very often in converfation, I fhall endeavour to give fome account of it; and to lay down rules how we may know whether we are poffeffed of it; and how we may acquire that fine tafte in writing which is fo much talked of among the polite world. Ibid.

In this fentence we find the prepofitions, conjunctions, and pronoun it, pronounced with the fame degree of feebleness as in the last instance; and befides these, we find the words, I shall, we may, we are, and which is, pronounced much more feebly than the rest of the words; this can be owing to nothing but the nature of the words themselves, which, though indicating perfon, promife, power, and existence, exhibit none of these particulars emphatically; that is, these words imply only fuch general circumstances as the objects are commonly fuppofed to be accompanied with, and therefore are anticipated or prefuppofed by the hearer : for whatever the hearer is fuppofed to be acquainted with, is not the object of communication: the perfon fpeaking is under no neceffity of telling his auditors that be in particular fhall do any thing, unless he means to diftinguish himself from fome other fpeaker; for that he speaks, is very well understood by every one who hears him; and for this reason, whatever has been once mentioned, is generally pronounced afterwards with lefs force than at firft, as fuppofed to be already fufficiently known.

As an inftance of the variety which this emphafis of force (as it is called) admits, it may not be improper to mark the foregoing fentence two different ways; firft with fuch words in Italics as feem neceffarily to require a greater force than the particles; and then to add to thefe, fuch words as we may pronounce in the same manner without altering the sense.

As this word arifes very often in converfation, I shall endeavour to give fome account of it; and to lay down rules how we may know whether we are poffeffed of it; and how we may ac quire that fine tafte in writing which is so much talked of among the polite world.

As this word arifes very often in converfation, I shall endeavour to give fome account of it; and to lay down rules how we may know whether we are poffeffed of it; and how we may acquire that fine taste of writing which is so much talked of among the polite world.

It may, however, be obferved, that though the last manner of marking this fentence is more emphatical, the first is the moft eafy and natural.

I fhall offer another inftance to fhow the difference in the ftrefs we lay on different words in a sentence, and then proceed to an examination of that stress which may be properly ftyled emphatical. Thus if we repeat the following fentence,

Exercife and temperance ftrengthen the conftitution, We find the particles and and the, pronounced much more feebly than the other words: and yet these other words cannot be properly called emphatical; for the ftrefs that is laid on them is no more than what is neceffary to convey diftinctly the meaning of each word: but if a word which has emphasis of sense be thrown into this fentence, we fhall foon perceive a ftriking difference between these words and the emphatical one; thus, if we were to say,

Exercise and temperance ftrengthen even an indifferent conftitution,

Here we fhall find the word indifferent, pronounced much more forcibly than the words exercife, temperance, and strengthen, as these