Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

name.

not reverse the order? Why not pronounce both with the same modulation? What peculiar reference is found to be involved in the interrogative verb, so different from that of the interrogative pronoun or adverb, that the one has been

supposed to require the rising slide, and the other the falling ?

It is clear that the question direct is more affirmative in its sense than the other, inasmuch as it involves a certainty of object or existence. “What is the hour ?” implies the existence of the hour. " Whát is his name?” involves the

“ Hów do you fèel ?" supposes the feeling inquired after, and, consequently, is naturally allied to the affirmative member of Principle First. On the contrary, the interrogative verb implies no such certainty. “Will you gó ?” leaves the going doubtful. “Have you heard the néws ?” so far from being existent in its import, suggests the response, “ Whàt news ?" Hence, probably, the sug

? gestion of the rising inflection as expressive of doubt, inconclusiveness, indefiniteness, in harmony with the penultimate, the supposition, the introductory member of former rules.

This hypothesis receives additional force from the fact that the interrogative verb more frequently implies antithesis than the pronoun or adverb. “Do you go to-day?” suggests the possible antithesis of going to-morrow. “Do you ríde to town ?” suggests the possibility of walking, thereby forcing the interrogative verb into the rising modulation, that the implied term of the antithesis may take the falling

Besides--the interrogative verb has the power of assimilating the question to an exclamation. Let the student consider how frequently questions occur in which the spirit and import of the exclamation are obviously involved, and where no response is asked or expected. Instances of this are innumerable, in which surprise, delight, admiration, are clearly expressed, and where the rising modulation of the exclamation seems so indispensable as to neutralise all con

[ocr errors]

a

sideration of the interrogative word. The interrogative verb is frequently the language of impassioned eloquence, and has been appropriated by our most celebrated orators as the figure of speech best fitted to exhibit the loftiest efforts of the rhetorician. Were the reader to contrast the effect of the two interrogative forms—the one so nervous and animated, the other so grave and sententious—he could not fail to be struck with the difference. Hence the constant use of the falling modulation by argumentative speakers and scholastics—in business transactions, and the ordinary routine of life-in all of which the importance of the thing to be done or demonstrated, finds an easy and a natural mode of communication in the affirmative member and its falling inflection. The rising slide suits the declaimer and orator—the falling, the educator and the man of busi

The former is the handmaid of poetry-the latter, of precise, sententious prose. Where sound is to obscure sense, the fancy to be amused, or the fortress of conviction to be carried by storm, the special pleader will find the rising modulation a powerful auxiliary. Truth clings to the falling-by it facts are stated, circumstances are explained, rebukes and injunctions rendered the more impressive, by the very character of the falling modulation in which they are administered.

Extracts illustrative of Principle Fourth :

ness.

VIRTUE MAN'S HIGHEST INTEREST. I find myself existing upon a little spot, surrounded every way by an immense unknown expansion.- Whére am I? What sort of a pláce do I inhábit? Is it exactly accommodated in every instance to my convénience? Is there no excèss of cold, none of héat, to offénd me? Am I never annoyed by animals either of my own kind or a different ? Is everything subservient to me, as though I had ordered all myself ?-Nd-nothing like it—the fárthest from it possible. The world appears not, then, originally made for the private convenience of me alone ?-It does not.

:

But is it not possible so to accommodate it, by my own particular Industry? If to accommodate man and beast, hèaven and earth, if this be beyond me, it is not possible. What consequence, then, follows? or can there be any dther than this ?—If I seek an interest of my own, detached from that of others, I seek an interest which is chimérical, and can never have existence.

Hów, then, must I determine? Have I no interest at áll? If I háve not, I am a fool for staying hère; 'tis a smòky house, and the sooner out of it the better. But whỹ no interest ? Can I be contented with none but one separate and detached ? Is a sócial interest, joined with others, such an absurdity as not to be admítted? The bée, the beaver, and the tribes of herding animals, are enough to convince me that the thing is somewhere, at lēast, pòssible. How, then, am I assured that 'tis not equally true of màn? Admít it; and what follows ? If so, then hónour and jùstice are my interest : then the whole train of móral vìrtues are my interest: without some portion of which, not even thieves can maintain society.

But farther still-I stop not hére—I pursue this social interest as far as I can trace my séveral relations. I pass from my own stóck, my own neighbourhood, my own nátion, to the whole race of mankind, as dispersed throughout the earth. Am I not relāted to them āll, by the mútual dids of commerce, by the gèneral in. tercourse of arts and letters, by that common nature of which we all participate !

Agáin--I must have food and cldthing. Without a proper gènial warmth, I instantly pèrish. Am I not related, in this view, to the very earth itself ? To the distant sún, from whose beams I derive vigour? To that stupéndous course and order of the infi. nite host of heaven, by which the times and seasons ever uniformly pass on? Were this order once confounded, I could not probably survive a moment; so absolutely do I depend on this common general welfare. What, then, have I to do, but to enlarge vírtue into piety? Not only honour and justice, and what I owe to mán, is my interest; but gratitude also, acquièscence, resignation, adoration, and all I owe to this great pólity, and its greater Góvernor, our common Pàrent. Harris.

ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A DEITY.

Retire. The world shut out. Thy thoughts call hoine. Imagination's airy wing repress. Lock up thy senses. Let no passion stir; Wake all to reason. Let her reign aloneThen, in thy soul's deep silence, and the depth Of Nature's silence, midnight, thus inquire : What am I ! and from whence? I nothing know But that I am; and, since I am, conclude Something eternal. Had there e'er been nought, Nought still had been. Eternal there must be. But what eternal ? Why not human race, And Adam's ancestors without an end ? That's hard to be conceived, since every link Of that long-chain’d succession is so frail; Can every part depend, and not the whole ? Yet grant it true, new difficulties rise : I'm still quite out at sea, nor see the shore. Whence earth, and these bright orbs ? Eternal too ! Grant matter was eternal; still these orbs Would want some other father. Much design Is seen in all their motions, all their makes. Design implies intelligence and art: That can't be from themselves—or man. That art, Man scarce can comprehend, could man bestow,And nothing greater yet allowed than man ! Who, motion, foreign to the smallest grain, Shot through vast masses of enormous weight ? Who bid brute matter's restive lump assume Such various forms, and gave it wings to fly? Has matter innate motion ? Then, each atom Asserting its indisputable right To dance, would form a universe of dust. Has matter none? Then, whence these glorious forms And boundless flights, from shapeless and reposed ? Has matter more than motion! Has it thought, Judgment, and genius? Is it deeply learned In mathematics? Has it framed such laws,

Which, but to guess, a Newton made immortal ?
If art to form, and counsel to conduct,
And that with greater far than human skill,
Resides not in each block-a GODHEAD reigns;
And if a God there is—that God how great!

-Young.

on.

FALSTAFF'S SOLILOQUY ON HONOUR. Owe Heaven a death ! 'Tis not due yet; and I would be loath to pay him before his day. What need I be so forward with him that calls not on me! Well, 'tis no matter-honour pricks me

But how if honour prick me off when I come on? How then? Can honour set to a leg? No: Or an arm ? No: Or take away the grief of a wound? No. Honour hath no skill in surgery then? No. What is honour! A word. What is that word honour ? Air: a trim reckoning. Who hath it ? He that died a Wednesday. Doth he feel it? No. Doth he hear it ? No. Is it insensible then? Yea, to the dead. But will it not live with the living ? No. Why? Detraction will not suffer it. Therefore I'll done of it. Honour is a mere 'scutcheon--and sa ends my catechism.--Shakspeare.

PRINCIPLE FIFTH.

THE PARENTHESIS OR EXPLANATORY CLAUSE

RULE.--The Parenthesis takes the modulation of the preceding member, is pronounced quicker and lower than the rest of the sentence, and is preceded and followed by a pause sufficient to give it an isolated and independent character.

A parenthesis or explanatory clause is a member inserted in the body of a sentence, of which the other members are altogether independent. The parenthesis should be carefully tested by this principle, since the sign is sometimes inserted, through inadvertency or ignorance, where no parenthesis is involved. It should be remembered also that the parenthe

D

« PředchozíPokračovat »