It is obvious that in speaking we naturally so express ourselves; and from what has been said, it is equally obvious that in reading we shall express ourselves in a similar way—that is, if we understand what we read, and read it as if we understood it. All rules, therefore, on this head are superfluous.*

The view that we have taken of the nature of emphasis renders it unnecessary for us to enter into the subject of what is called Emphatic Inflection. The great rule for GOOD READING will lead us in every case to give the emphatic word that tone and that inflection of voice which the subject and the occasion require. All rules, therefore, on the subject are unnecessary.+

The great importance of emphasis has led us to dwell upon the subject to the exclusion of some of the other matters usually treated of in compilations of this kind; but the fact is, we consider emphasis as the key to GOOD READING; for to mark the emphatic words properly requires us to understand the full meaning and spirit of what we read.

under it, but also the syllable next it; for in proportion as the one is dwelt upon, the other is passed quickly over.-See the Introduction to the writer's" English Dictionary."

*For in speaking, or reading understandingly, we instinctively group together and pronounce, as if they constituted one word, all those words or phrases in a sentence which collectively present one idea or object to the mind. This natural running of words into each other makes it difficult for us to understand or catch the full meaning of persons speaking a language with which we are not familiar. We are in the habit of requesting them not to speak so quick. Foreigners, however, makeand have as much reason to make the same complaint of us. If any person thinks that he does not run his words into each other, let him pronounce any sentence or part of a sentence word by word distinctly, no matter how quickly, and he will be convinced of the contrary. Children learning to read pronounce the words in a similar way, that is, word by word, till they have overcome the mechanical difficulty of reading, and are able to read with ease and expression.

Such as, when the emphatic word should be pronounced with a rising, and when with a falling inflection; when in a high or loud tone of voice, and when in a low and strong; when it should be marked by a pause before it, when, after it; and when both before and after it.

INFLECTIONS OF THE VOICE.

The following are Walker's original observations on this subject :

"When the first edition of this work [Elements of Elocution'] was published, I considered the human voice as divisible into two inflections only. Some time after, upon re-considering the subject more maturely, I found there were certain turns of voice which I could not distinctly class with either of these two inflections. This discovery mortified me exceedingly. I feared my whole labour was lost, and that I had been fatiguing myself with a distinction which existed nowhere but in my imagination. None but those who have been systemmakers can judge of the regret and disappointment which this apprehension occasioned. It did not, however continue long. The same trial of the voice which assured me of the two opposite inflections, the rising and the falling, soon convinced me that those inflections which I could not reduce to either of these two, were neither more nor less than two combinations of them, and that they were real circumflexes; the one beginning with the rising inflection, and ending with the falling, on the same syllable; and the other beginning with the falling, and ending with the rising, on the same syllable. This relieved me from my anxiety; and I considered the discovery of so much importance that I immediately published a small pamphlet, called 'The Melody of Speaking Delineated;' in which I explained it as well as I was able by writing, but referred the reader to some passages where he could scarcely fail to adopt it on certain words, and perceive the justness of the distinction. I was confirmed in my opinion by reflecting that a priori, and independently, on actual practice, these modifications of the human voice must necessarily exist. First, if there was no turn or inflection of the voice it must continue in a monotone. Secondly, if the voice was inflected, it must be either upwards or downwards, and so produce the rising or falling inflection. Thirdly, if these two were united on the same syllable, it could only be by beginning with the rising, and ending with the falling inflection, or vice versa, as any other mixture of these opposite inflections was impossible. A thorough conviction of the truth of this distinction gave me a confidence that nothing could shake.'

He subsequently states, as introductory to his "Theory of the Inflections of the Voice:"

"Besides the pauses which indicate a greater or less separation of the parts of a sentence, and a conclusion of the whole,

there are certain inflections of voice, accompanying these pauses, which are as necessary to the sense of the sentence as the pauses themselves; for, however exactly we may pause between those parts which are separable, if we do not pause with such an inflection of voice as is suited to the sense, the composition we read will not only want its true meaning, but will have a meaning very different from that intended by the writer.

"Whether words are pronounced in a high or low, in a loud or soft tone; whether they are pronounced swiftly or slowly, forcibly or feebly, with the tone of passion or without it, they must necessarily be pronounced either sliding upwards or downwards, or else go into a monotone or song.

"By the rising or falling inflection is not meant the pitch of the voice in which the whole word is pronounced, or that loudness or softness which may accompany any pitch; bat that upward or downward slide which the voice makes when the pronunciation of a word is finishing, and which may, therefore, not improperly be called the rising and falling inflection.

"These two slides, or inflections of voice, therefore, are the axis, as it were, on which the force, variety, and harmony of speaking turn."

The following are Mr. J. Sheridan Knowles's observations on the subject, as given in his "Elocutionist:”

"And here we beg leave to correct the erroneous position, that the inflections are essential to the sense. They are no such thing; except perhaps in the single article of emphasis; and for this palpable reason-the English, Scotch, and Irish use them differently, and yet not the smallest ambiguity follows with regard to the communication or the production of thought. The sense is a guide to the use of the inflections; that is all. The system is nothing more nor less than an analysis, if I may use the term, of the manner in which the best speakers in London modulate the voice; and as such, is highly important -assisting us to get rid of one peculiarity which constitutes provincial speech, a misapplication of the inflections."

Mr. Knowles concludes by "acknowledging the obligations which he, in common with every other teacher of elocution, owes to the researches of Walker."

to ""

Mr. Spalding expresses similar opinions with regard THE INFLECTIONS," but in a very different spirit:"Walker is the idol of all teachers, and it is not difficult to account for the preference; all of them believe that they

D

understand his definition of inflection, and read according to his rules, while in fact they are merely teaching their own manner to their pupils. Thus the teacher residing in Cork, in Dublin, or Belfast in Glasgow, Edinburgh, or Inverness in the east or in the west, the north or the south of England, can use the system of Walker, and read according to his rules, though not one of them may agree with the other in regard to the interval or the extent of the inflection. No system could have been invented, better adapted to please all parties, as every one is at liberty to make use of those intervals which habit has rendered easy to him, in his common accent; and this I believe to be one of the principal causes why the system has long kept the field, in despite of the frown of the critic, and the contempt of our first rate orators and actors. Suppose Walker had been intelligible; suppose every one to have known the extent of his inflections, what would have been the consequence? Simply the perpetuating of Mr. Walker's own manner, or the Cockney accent of seventeen hundred and seventy; for it is not pretended that his system is founded upon nature. His system has been an incubus on the science, preventing thousands from thinking rationally, or thinking at all, on the subject. It never could make a good reader, reciter, nor speaker. On the contrary, the study of it has rendered the delivery of many unnatural, ridiculous, and disgusting, who, had they never heard of Walker, might have been good speakers. His Elements of Elocution,' his Rhetorical Grammar,' his Academic Cicero,' his interminable rules and precepts, may serve as a proof of the soundness of the observation cf Condillac, that we have never so much to say, as when we set out from false principles.'

"While every other art and science is in a state of progressive improvement, the science of elocution stands still, or rather is retrograding into its original state of barbarism. There is nothing definite, nothing tangible, no acknowledged principles, no beam of light to guide onward to perfection in the practice of the art. Theories and systems follow each other in rapid succession from the press. Old systems are new vamped, and the matter of the vamping is a mere composite of individual peculiarities. The student is bewildered in his choice; here stands a Rice, a Walker, a Sheridan, and a Steel-and there the host of reverends, doctors, and philosophers, who have improved or commented upon their systems."

Mr. Spalding's own system was of course to set every thing to rights, but though it promised to last as long

as the English language, it scarcely survived himself; for who knows or hears any thing of it now, notwithstanding the "Portal of Rhetorical Delivery," "New System of Corporeal Expression," "Mechanics of Action," and a volume of testimonials in their favour, from the leading literati of the day (some twenty years ago)?

We shall now endeavour to reduce to a few general principles the numerous and complicated rules given by Walker and his followers for INFLECTING the voice in

READING.

It is observable that in SPEAKING the voice either rises or falls, or continues in the same tone. When it rises, or takes the upward turn, it is said to have the Rising Inflection; and when it falls, or takes the downward turn, it is said to have the Falling Inflection; but when it continues in the same tone, neither rising nor falling, it is said to have a Monotone. In some cases there is a union or combination of the rising and falling inflection on the same syllable. This is called the Circumflex Inflection, and it is distinguishable into the Rising and Falling Circumflex, according as it begins with the rising or falling inflection.

The Rising Inflection is denoted by the acute accent, thus (); and the Falling Inflection by the grave accent, thus ).

The Rising Circumflex is denoted thus (~); and the Falling Circumflex, thus (^).

The Monotone is usually denoted by a line under the word or words, thus

GENERAL RULES FOR INFLECTING SENTENCES.

RISING INFLECTION.

RULE I. In all cases where the sense is incomplete or suspended, the rising inflection should be used.*

a. Hence, generally speaking, the rising inflection should

* In all such cases we naturally and spontaneously slide up the voice, as if to bespeak the attention of our hearers to that which is to follow: that is, on the supposition that we understand what we read, and read it as if we understood it.