In this passage, every word in Italics may be said to be emphatical; as every one of these words is opposed to some other word, as to its correlative or correspondent word. In the second line, judging is opposed to writing; in the fourth, mislead is opposed to tire, and sense to patience; in the fifth, few is opposed to numbers, and this to that; as in the last one, one is opposed to ten, and writes to censure; wrong and amiss being only two words for exactly the same idea, have no opposition to each other, and therefore cannot be emphatical.

But when the opposition, in which emphasis consists, is elliptical; that is, when but one part of the antithesis is expressed, and the other is to be supplied by the understanding, and made out by the pronunciation; when this is the case, I say, the emphatic word is not so easily discovered. Here then we must have recourse to the general import of the sentence; and whatever word we suppose to be emphatical, must be tried, by pronouncing it more forcibly than the rest of the words; and if this pronunciation suggests a phrase, which, if inserted in the sentence, would explain and illustrate it, we may be sure that word is emphatical. Let us try to make this clear by examples.

And if each system in gradation roll,
Alike essential to th' amazing whole;
The least confusion but in ONE, not all
That system only, but the whole must fall.

In the third line of this passage, we find an uncommon effort in the author to express" the strong connections, nice dependencies" of one part of the general system upon another: and, if we lay a strong emphasis on the word one, we shall find

this connection and dependency very powerfully enforced; for it will suggest this antithesis: "the least confusion, not in several or a great many parts of the universe, but even in one, would bring confusion on the whole." This paraphrase we not only find consistent with the sense of the poet, but greatly illustrative of it; and hence we may determine the word one to be emphatical.

Gray's Elegy in a Country Church-yard affords us another striking instance of emphasis, where only one part of the antithesis is expressed. The writer is foretelling what some hoary-headed swain will say of him when he lies numbered among the unhonoured dead.

One morn I miss'd him on th' accustom'd hill,
Along the heath, and near his fav'rite tree;
Another came, nor yet beside the rill,

Nor up the lawn, nor at the wood, was he.

The next with dirges due, in sad array,

Slow thro' the church-way path we saw him borne; Approach, and read (for thou canst read) the lay, Grav'd on the stone, beneath yon aged thorn.

Here the words thou canst are emphatical, as they are evidently opposed to I cannot, which are understood; a very beautiful way of hinting the simplicity of the swain from his ignorance of the written characters of his language.

In these instances, the opposition suggested by the emphatical word is sufficiently evident; in other cases, perhaps, the antithesis is not quite so obvious; but if an emphasis can be laid on any word, we may be assured that word is in antithesis with some meaning agreeable to the general sense of the passage.

To illustrate this, let us pronounce a line of Marcus, in Cato, where, expressing his indignation at the behaviour of Cæsar, he says,

I'm tortur'd ev'n to madness when I think of the proud victor,

and we shall find the greatest stress fall naturally on that word which seems opposed to some common or general meaning; for the young hero does not say, in the common and unemphatic sense of the word think, that he is tortured even to madness when he thinks on Cæsar, but on the strong and emphatic sense of this word, which implies not only "when I hear or discourse of him, but even when I think of him, I'm tortur'd even to madness.'

As the word think therefore rises above the common level of signification, it is pronounced above the common level of sound; and as this signification is opposed to a signification less forcible, the word may be properly said to be emphatical. For we must carefully remember · that emphasis is that stress we lay on words which are in opposition or contradistinction to other words, expressed or understood.

For a more exact idea of the nature of emphasis, See Elements of Elocution: Introduction to the Theory of Emphasis, page 189.

On the different Forces of Emphatic Words.

It is impossible not to have observed in the last article, that the emphatic words of the latter kind, where but one part of the antithesis is expressed, are pronounced much more forcibly than those where both parts of the antithesis are laid down, and the opposition appears at full

length. The reason seems to be this: as empha sis always implies opposition, either expressed or understood, when this opposition is express ed it is sufficiently obvious, and needs not a more forcible pronunciation than accented words to make it perceived; but when only one emphatic word is expressed, and the other understood, it is necessary to increase the force upon the word expressed, that what is in opposition to it, and is not expressed, may become more obvious and intelligible.

If these observations are just, we see an evident reason why most of those books which mark the emphatical words in Italics make almost every significant word emphatical; and why this practice is so much decried by others, as a useless multiplication of emphasis:-both these parties are in the right. The former perceiving great numbers of words in opposition to each other, very properly considered them as emphatical; and perceiving at the same time, that almost every substantive, adjective, and verb, had as much force in the pronunciation as these emphatical words, they knew not how to draw the line between them, and so marked them all indiscriminately as emphatical. The latter finding that very few words were pronounced more forcibly than the words we have just been describing, concluded that very few words were emphatical, because so few were to be pronounced more forcibly than the rest. Thus, for want of a distinction between the two kinds of emphatic words, neither party seems to have understood where the fault lay.

It must be confessed, however, that the practice of marking so many words in Italics, as em

phatical, without distinguishing between emphasis expressed, and emphasis understood; and without telling us precisely the degree of force to be given to the words unmarked, was a much greater source of error than denying emphasis to such words as had no more force than common substantives, adjectives, and verbs. The latter opinion would at least leave the understanding to judge for itself, while the former would often mislead it. Marking every significant word as emphatical tends greatly to give a turgid and bombastic pronunciation to common words, at the same time that it lessens our attention to such as really deserve extraordinary force. This cannot be better explained than by quoting a passage from one of the best books of this kind, and making a few observations on it. The passage I intend to consider is the latter part of Pope's prologue to Cato, as I find it in the Art of Speaking, p. 86.

Britons, attend! be worth like this approv'd,
And show you have the virtue to be mov'd.
With honest scorn the first fam'd Cato view'd

Rome learning arts from Greece, whom she subdu’d.
Our scene precariously subsists too long

On French translation and Italian song.

Dare to have sense yourselves; assert the stage:
Be justly warm'd with your own native rage.
Such plays alone should please a British ear,
As Cato's self had not disdain'd to hear.

This passage is in general pretty accurately marked; but if we conceive the words in Roman letters to have exactly the same force as the unaccented syllables of the others, we shall soon see that many significant words are thrown too much into the shade. I know it will be said that these significant words, though they have

L