[blocks in formation]

feared my

WHEN the first Edition of this work was published, I considered the human voice as divisible into two inflections only. Some time after, upon reconsidering 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

whole labour was lost, and that I had been fatiguing myself with a distinction which existed no where but in my imagination. None, but those who have been system makers, 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 falling, soon convinced me that those inflections ch 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 upon the same syllable ; and the other beginning with the falling, and ending with the rising on the same syllable. This relieved 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 upon certain words, and perceive the justness of the distinction. I was confirmed in my opinion by reflecting that à 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. Second. ly, if the voice was inflected, it must be either upwards or downwards, and so produce either the rising or falling inflection. Thirdly, if these two were united on the same syllabie it could only be by b ginning 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 which nothing could shake. I exemplified it, viva voce, to many of my critical friends, who uniformly agreed with me : and this enabled me to conceive and demonstrate the Greek and Latin circumflex, (so often mentioned, and so totally unintelligible to the moderns,) but occasioned not a little surprise (since it is as easy to conceive that the voice may fall and rise upon the same syllable, as that it may rise and fall) why the ancients had the latter circumflex, and not the former. Some probable conjectures respecting this point, as well as the nature of accent, ancient and modern, may be seen at the end of a Work lately published, called A Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek and Latin Proper Names,

« VorigeDoorgaan »