that he gives to interrogative sentences formed with these words. This is his general rule. His exception, of which we have been speaking, is embodied in What news! We also meet with his exception in the following passage of the Essay on Man, where we find Pope thus addressing happi

ness:

Plant of celestial seed, if dropp'd below,

Say in what mental soil thou deign'st to grow:
Fair op'ning to some court's propitious shine,
Or deep with diamonds in the flaming mine?
Twin'd with the wreaths Parnassian laurels yield,
Or reap'd in iron harvests of the field?

Where grows? where grows it not? if vain our toil,
We ought to blame the culture, not the soil.

Walker says, that "here the phrase, where grows assumes the rising inflection, and ought to be marked with the note of exclamation."

He very justly makes where grows end in the rising slide —and that too on the principle of supplying the ellipsis, which, he says, would be equivalent to Do you ask where it grows; which, according to his rule of interrogative sentences, formed without the interrogative words, takes the rising inflection. Here he has shown more of the generalizing principle than he usually does. An ellipsis, he says, does not change the meaning of the sentence. This is likewise what we have proposed. We consider, as we always do, the import of the sentence, and if elliptical, we supply, so as to make the cause of the inflection more evident and satisfactory. There might have been only one word, grows, which not unfrequently happens. We, therefore, as we have already remarked, supply the ellipsis, and refer it to that part of the rule to which nature has assigned it.

Look at that exclamation of Lord Chatham's, in his celebrated speech on the barbarity of employing the Indians in the American war, where he, speaking in reply to what Lord Suffolk says about "using all the means that God and Nature have put into our hands," thus exclaims, That God and Nature have put into our hands! This is a questioning exclamation. The words understood might be, Does Lord Suffolk recommend the use of all the means that God and Nature have put into our hands? The words of Lord Suffolk, “for it is perfectly allowable to use all the means which God and Nature have put into our hands," belong to the answer, and consequently adopt the falling inflection. This, however, has no influence over the inflection of Lord Chatham's exclamation, which is allied to the questioning part of the rule; and, as the first word is not emphatic, it assumes the rising inflection.

The examples which follow, are sentences exhibiting the emphatic stress on the first words, and, by consequence, the falling inflection on the last.

What a beautiful landscape! What a command of language! How far removed from selfishness! How full of benevolence!

If we analyze any of these, we shall find that there is a particular stress which we give to what or how, much superior to any other of these words. The person who expresses such exclamations, proceeds on the supposition of receiving, we might say, an entire confirmation of his sentiment-in other words, it is to extort some such words as these, yes, it is a beautiful landscape-true, your emotion is very proper and natural. But whether an affirmation or negation is immaterial. A knave may express his senti

E

ment in this manner to drag some innocent victim to the

rack.

As our limits remind us that we must take leave of exclamation-sentences, we have now to notice those of the parenthesis; which do not warrant us to propose any distinct rule for their regulation, at least, in as far as inflection is concerned. We repeat, all that we have to do here, and elsewhere, is, to consult the sentence of which they form a part. But whether a parenthesis forms a part, or the whole of a sentence-by which we mean the questioning and the answering parts-Nature, we conceive, bids us inflect in consistency with the rule. It is plain, that different tones and inflections of voice, and various degrees of rapidity may attend sentences not strictly parenthetical. But it is as plain that the same, with equal truth, may be affirmed of those decidedly and vulgarly known by this appellation. While some claim to themselves a higher, or even a lower tone of voice than the sentences or parts of sentences to which they more immediately stand related, others arrogate to themselves nothing in this respect peculiar. While nature and the sense join in recommending some to be read with a greater rapidity than the neighbouring members, they justly, evidently, and unhesitatingly condemn in others a rapidity foreign to the general tenor of the passage. And while we, supposing ourselves under the guidance of their dictates, would read or deliver some with a greater rapidity, we equally, in obedience to their dictates, would deliver others with a less degree of rapidity than the adjoining members. Though we have little doubt of the truth of these observations, it must be remarked, that, in a great number of instances, a more rapid delivery, and lower

tone of voice than the members immediately preceding them, will, we have as little doubt, characterize a great number of parenthetical sentences.

Some disagreement has arisen as to the mode of enclosing a parenthesis. Conceiving that printers have erred egregiously in substituting commas for hooks, which mark the vulgar parenthesis, Walker severely reprobates the practice, because he believes it productive of much injury to the proper reading, as well as the right understanding of sentences. There may be some truth in this. But if every member is to be distinguished by a particular mark for the proper reading or the right understanding of the sense, there will be no end to marks. Besides, there are members to be met with in almost every sentence, but more particularly in eloquent authors, as strictly parenthetical as those to which the general voice has awarded the exclusive appellation.

Keeping in mind what has been affirmed, that all such sentences come under the same rule, we give the following as one which includes both states-the questioning and the answering: the latter consequently terminating in the downward inflection.

Had I, when speaking in the assembly, been absolute and independent master of affairs, then your other speakers might call me to account. But if you were ever present, if you were all in general invited to propose your sentiments, if you were all agreed that the measures then suggested were really the best; if you Æschines, in particular, were thus persuaded—and it was no partial affection for me, that prompted you to give me up the hopes, the applauses, the honours, which attended that course I then advised, but the superior force of truth, and your utter inability to point out any more eligible course-if this was the case, I say, is it

E 2

not highly cruel and unjust to arraign those measures now, when you could not then propose any better?

The questioning part ends in the rising inflection at advised. But whatever is the inflection of persuaded—which, by-the-bye, Walker makes the falling-it can have no power over the inflection of eligible course, which, as it is an unmodified answer, demands the downward slide. This parenthesis evidently forms in itself a complete sentence— uncontrolled by either the pre-ceding or the suc-ceeding

members.

Observe the next sentence, which contains only the questioning member.

Dr. Clarke has observed, that Homer is more perspicuous than any other author; but if he is so-which yet may be questioned the perspicuity arises from his subject, and not from the language itself in which he writes.

Now, if questioned assumes the rising slide, it is on the principle of our rule-on the supposition of something being understood. But take away this something, you at once deprive it of this inflection. We, it is needless to remark, likewise regulate the inflection of so, the first word which precedes the parenthetical member, by the same principle.

We are of opinion, that a great number of parenthetical members will be found to belong to the questioning state; and to that part of it, the first word of which is not under the dominion of emphasis. This opinion of ours, it is to be understood, is entirely at the mercy of a qualification which it is unnecessary to explain. This sentence, however, is an example of the falling:

Now, I will come unto you, when I pass through Macedonia;