Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

to the merest tyro, that words having a relative opposition to one another have a force and appositeness altogether superior to that of merely accented words. The reader feels their importance wherever they occur; feels that they claim a consideration, peculiarly their own, from the amount of significance they involve; that they cannot be tripped over cursorily without doing violence to the sense.

One most important consideration connected with the doctrine of emphasis is, that the emphatic force has no inflection of its own, but is modulated on the principle of general rules. It is absurd to contend that the emphatic force exercises any control over the system of modulation, which must ever depend on the sense of the member. The emphatic word, no doubt, restricts that sense; were the emphatic word to change its position in the sentence, the idea and its modulation would necessarily change with it; still the character of the modulation, as being rising or falling, depends not upon that word alone, but is determined by the pervading sense, as being negative, affirmative, concessive, &c. The import of the sentence determines the nature of the inflection—the emphatic word, like the accented, merely appropriates to itself the inflection which that import assigns to it, in accordance with the rule to which it belongs.

Whence arises this controlling power in the emphatic force for which certain elocutionists contend? It has been alleged that the emphatic word dictates the rising or falling modulation, according to the extent of its relative signification. Thus, we find the emphatic force distinguished into two kinds; by some, into the emphasis of force and the emphasis of sense-by others, into the positive or weak emphasis and the relative or strong emphasis; both marking the same distinction, and originating, we apprehend, in the same misapprehension. The accented and emphatic forces seem a much simpler and more correct phraseology. The rule of emphasis, according to the prevailing system, is, that "when

E

the emphatic force excludes the antithesis, or leaves it doubtful, it requires the rising inflection; when otherwise, the falling;”—or, in other words, "when the emphatic word does not affirm the same thing of its antithesis, or leaves it doubtful, it requires the weak emphasis and rising inflection; but when it does affirm the same thing of its antithesis, it requires the strong emphasis and falling inflection," thus controlling the modulation by the particular import of the emphatic word, and not by the general sense. For example-“ Hé woùld not húrt a flỳ;"—this, say the advocates for the rule of emphasis, takes the strong emphasis and falling inflection, because it is intended to convey the idea that the person alluded to would hurt nothing; would injure no animal; and consequently including the antithesis. Again-" Hè would not hùrt a flý;”—this, say they, takes the weak emphasis and rising inflection, because the sense intended to be conveyed is, not that the individual would injure no sensitive being, but that, at least, he would despise to hurt so helpless and insignificant a creature as a fly,—thus excluding the antithetical word. Now, in opposition to this, it seems perfectly plain that there is no dependence here of the inflection upon the emphatic word, separately considered, but altogether upon the general sense; wherefore there is no occasion for recourse to any abstract rule of emphasis, but to the rules for modulation in general. Thus—“ Hé woùld not húrt a fly"—with the falling inflection certainly; not, however, because of any particular kind or degree of emphasis, or because the emphatic word fly includes the antithesis, but because the entire clause forms an example of Principle First, "Affirmative members take the falling inflection." Again" He would not hùrt a flý"-with the rising inflection, not because it is any example of the weak emphasis, the emphatic word excluding the antithesis, but because it is an equally obvious example of Principle Second, "Negative members take the rising inflection;"—and so with all

other examples of the supposed rule of emphasis. Let the modulation be regulated by the general principles already advanced, and the result will be the same as that of the rule of emphasis; with this advantage, that the principles of reading will be compressed into less compass and be less perplexing. The elocutionist must legislate for entire sentences, not for isolated clauses, as in the above example, the general bearing of which may be obscure. In the former case, the sense is obvious, and determines the modulation; in the latter, the critic may speculate at pleasure, claiming authority for a principle which would have no authority and no necessity, were the entire sentence submitted to the reader's consideration.

The following extract from Rowe's tragedy of "The Fair Penitent," has been often quoted by those who plead the controlling power of the emphatic forces. Mr Walker was the first to urge its importance as an example of the weak emphasis, with the rising modulation on "man," which position Mr Sheridan Knowles disputes:

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

It would probably settle the controversy were it remembered that "man" is not necessarily the emphatic word in the clause, inasmuch as it forms no antithesis either expressed or implied. It cannot be supposed that the author is, in this sentence, instituting any comparison betwixt the individual referred to and any other order of creature, or even betwixt one degree or quality of man and another. The act of fraud and forgery with which the gay Lothario was chargeable cannot be supposed worthy of any other being. That which was a crime in him, was so in itself, and could not become a virtue in any other; whereas, according to the supposed law of emphasis, which would assign the rising

inflection to "man," as an example of the weak emphatic force, that which was unworthy of Lothario as a human being might not have been supposed unworthy of some inferior nature. The adjective "unworthy" seems to have been overlooked, the importance of which entitles it to take the falling modulation as the emphatic word of an inverse concluding member, and preparatory to the penultimate inflection on the word "loose," thereby cancelling the modulation on the word "man," as being only of secondary importance. The sentence will then be inflected as above. It would be

easy to multiply examples of the same nature. We are not aware of a single sentence adduced in confirmation of the law of emphasis that may not be comprehended under other rules. "I will be in mán's despite a monarch"-" despite❞ taking the falling modulation because it is the emphatic word of an affirmative member, and not because it exemplifies the strong emphasis. It is to be understood, then, that there are no rules of emphatic inflection exclusively, but that the principles of elocution have an application common to emphatic as well as accented words; for this reason, that the inflection arises out of the general meaning, and not the particular acceptation of any single word, whether accented or emphatic.

The Antithesis is represented in three distinct forms-the simple, double, and triple; the principle in each being, that opposite terms require opposite inflections.

RULE 1st. The Simple Antithesis consists of two terms opposed to each other, the former of which takes the rising modulation if the latter requires the falling, as is the case in final and affirmative members; whereas, should the latter require the rising, as in the case of closing negatives, &c., the former will take the falling. Thus "The manner of speaking is ās important as the matter." "Almost évery object that attracts our notice has its bright and its dark side." cérity is opposed to cùnning, not to true wisdom." "To bè,

"Sin

or not to be; that is the question." "Trúe èase in writing comes from art, not chance."

2d. The Double Antithesis consists of four terms opposed to each other, or rather of two simple antitheses conjoined; the first and last of which take the falling modulation on final and affirmative members, where the fourth term concludes the sense, but are reversed in negatives, &c.; while the second and third take the rising under the same limitation. Thus, in instituting a comparison between the two epic poets of antiquity, Dr Johnson says "Homer is the greater génius, Virgil the better artist; in the one we most admire the mán, in the other the work.” "The young are slaves to nóvelty, the old to custom." "The king's sleep is not swèeter, nor his appetite bétter, than in the méanest of his sùbjects." “If the rich man hās the mōre mèat, but the poor man the better stómach, the difference is all in favour of the latter."

3d. The Triple Antithesis consists of six terms opposed to each other, or three successive simple antitheses combined-the first term being opposed to the fourth, the second to the fifth, and the third to the sixth. In final and affirmative members, the first, third, and fifth take the rising modulation, in order to preserve their antithetic relation to the second, fourth, and sixth terms, which take the falling, or vice versa, as before. Thus, in Dr Johnson's contrast of Pope with Dryden"Drýden is read with frèquent astonishment, Pòpe with perpétual delight. The notions of Dryden were formed by comprehensive speculation, thōse of Pope with minúte attèntion." "Precipitation rùins the best contrived plāns, patience ripens the most difficult."

The Quadruple Antithesis, as exemplified in Dryden's Ode on the Power of Music, scarcely merits the distinction of a separate rule, as one or more of the eight terms it contains are generally suppressed as unnecessary.

"Hé raised a mòrtal to the skies,

Shè drew an ángel dòwn.”

« PředchozíPokračovat »