Here then we are advanced one step towards knowledge of what inflexion of voice we ought to use on one kind of emphasis; for whenever the emphatic word points out a particular fenfe in exclufion of fome other fenfe, this. emphatical word adopts the falling inflexion: the word fight, therefore, in the first, and dungeon in the laft example, muft neceffarily be pronounced with the falling inflexion, as they tacitly exclude rail, and mere abfence from beautiful fcenes, which are in contradiftinction to them.

Having thus difcovered the specific import of one emphatic inflexion, it will not be very difficult to trace out the other: for as the import of these two inflexions may be prefumed to be different, we may, by analogy, be led to conclude, that as the emphatic word which excludes fomething in contradiftinction to it, demands the falling inflexion, the emphasis with the rifing inflexion is to be placed on those words, which, though in contradiftinction to Something elfe, do not abfolutely exclude its existence. Let us try this by an example. Lothario, in the Fair Penitent, expreffing his contempt for the oppofition of Horatio, fays,

By the joys

Which yet my foul has uncontrol'd purfu'd,
I would not turn aside from my least pleasure
Though all thy' force were arm'd to bar my way.

Fair Penitent, A&t ii. The word thy, in this paffage, has the emphasis with the rifing inflexion; which intimates, that however Lothario might be restrained by the force of others, Horatio's force, at least, was too infignificant to control him: and as a

farther proof that this is the fense suggested by the rifing inflexion on the word thy, if we do but alter the inflexion upon this word, by giving it the emphasis with the falling inflexion, we fhall find, that instead of contempt and fneer, a compliment will be paid to Horatio; for it would imply as much as if Lothario had faid, I would not turn afide from my leaft 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 fenfe of the paffage, is evident.

Here then we feem arrived at the true principle of diftinction in emphasis. All emphafis has an antithefis either expreffed or understood; if the emphafis excludes the antithefis, the emphatic word has the falling inflexion; if the emphafis does not exclude the antithefis, the emphatic word has the rifing inflexion. The grand diftinction, therefore, between the two emphatic inflexions is this; the falling inflexion affirms fomething in the emphasis, and denies what is oppofed to it in the antithefis; while the emphafis with the rifing inflexion, affirms fomething in the emphafis, without denying what is oppofed to it in the antithefis: the former, therefore, from its affirming and denying abfolutely, may be called the ftrong emphasis; and the latter, from its affirming only, and not denying, may be called the weak emphafis. As a farther trial of the truth of thefe definitions, let us examine them by a few additional examples.

When Richard the Third rejects the propofal of the duke of Norfolk to pardon the rebels, he fays,

Why that, indeed, was our fixth 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
For me.
Richard III.

A& 5.

In this example, we find feveral words emphatical; but the words defpite and fear particularly fo: thefe are always pronounced with the ftrong emphafis, which always adopts the falling inflexion. In the foregoing definition of this emphafis, it is faid, that the falling inflexion affirms fomething in the emphafis, and denies what is opposed to it in the antithefis; and we accordingly find, that fomething is affirmed of the words defpite and fear, and fomething is denied of the antithetic objects. fuggefted by these words, which are favour and fearlessness; for the paraphrafe of these words, when thus emphatical, would be, I'll be, not in men's favour, but in their despite a monarchand let not me who am fearless, but kings that fear, forgive by which we perceive the juftnefs of the definition; for what is affirmed of the emphatic object is denied of the antithetic object; agreeably to the definition of the ftrong emphafis, or the emphafis with the falling inflexion: another example will ferve farther to illuftrate the nature of this fpecies of emphafis. When Cato is encouraging his little fenate to hold out against Cæfar to the laft, he fays,

Why should Rome fall a moment ere her time?

The emphafis, with the falling inflexion on the word moment, which is the inflexion it is always pronounced with, fuggefts an antithefis oppofed to a moment, which antithefis is a

4

a very short time; and the import of this emphafis 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 fee the definition of this emphafis again exemplified; for fomething is affirmed of the emphatic object, and fomething is denied of the antithetic object.

The import of the emphafis with the rifing inflexion, may be exemplified by the following paffage. Horatio, in the Fair Penitent, taxing Lothario with forgery, fays,

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

Fair Penitent, A&t ii.

The word man, in the first line of this example, is the emphatic object, which must neceffarily have the rifing inflexion; because this inflexion intimates, that fomething is affirmed of the emphatic, which is not denied of the antithetic object: the antithetic object to the word man, we may fuppofe to be fome being of a lower order; and if this emphafis were paraphrafed, it would run thus: 'Twas bafe and poor, unworthy of a man, though not unworthy of a brute. And thus we find, that in this emphafis, what is affirmed of the emphatic object is not denied of the antithetic object, agreeably to the defi

Inition laid down.

In the examples which have been hitherto produced, the emphasis has always clearly fuggefted the antithefis; and a paraphrafe, formed by producing both the emphatic and antithetic object, has readily prefented itself: but

there are many inftances, where, though the antithetic object is equally real, it is not fo eafily made out. In order to facilitate this operation, it will be neceffary to observe, that the human feelings have recourfe to the most minute diftinctions imaginable, for the fake of expreffing those feelings with precision and force.

Thus when Lothario, in the Fair Penitent, fays to Lucilla,

I fee thou haft learn'd to rail. Fair Penit. A&t i, The emphasis with the rifing inflexion on the word rail, does not fuggeft any precife antithetic object in oppofition to it, but an indefinite fomething more excellent than railing, as if he had faid, I fee thou hast learn'd to rail, if thou haft not acquired any art more excellent than railing but whether the has any fuch acquirement, he leaves her to judge.

In the fame manner, when Jane Shore is protefting her fidelity to Edward's iffue, Glofter answers,

'Tis well---we'll try the temper of your heart. Jane Shore, A& iv. The emphasis with the falling inflexion on the word try fuggefts an antithes, which makes it neceffary to have recourfe to the former fpeech in this we find Jane Shore give proof of her fidelity by proteftations; but Glofter replies, 'Tis well, we'll try the temper of your heart; which is perfectly equivalent to faying, We will not only prove your fidelity by talking, but by trial; and as this amplifies and illuftrates the fenfe of the paffage, we may be sure the emphafis is properly placed,