lighter as well as the more impressive sounds are included; but still, whether both together, considered as accents, can be reckoned the same as long and short quantities, is questionable.  Some say, they cannot; and insist that they are yet as different, as the variable tones of a trumpet, which swell and fall, are different from the merely loud and soft notes of the monotonous drum.  This illustration of the “easy Distinction betwixt Quantity and Accent” is cited with commendation, in Brightland’s Grammar, on page 157th;[492] the author of which grammar, seems to have understood Accent, or Accents, to be the same as Inflections—­though these are still unlike to quantities, if he did so. (See an explanation of Inflections in Chap.  II, Sec. iii, Art. 3, above.) His exposition is this:  “Accent is the rising and falling of the Voice, above or under its usual Tone.  There are three Sorts of Accents, an Acute, a Grave, and an Inflex, which is also call’d a Circumflex.  The Acute, or Sharp, naturally raises the Voice; and the Grave, or Base, as naturally falls it.  The Circumflex is a kind of Undulation, or Waving of the Voice.”—­Brightland’s Gram., Seventh Ed., Lond., 1746, p. 156.

OBS. 4.—­Dr. Johnson, whose great authority could not fail to carry some others with him, too evidently identifies accent with quantity, at the commencement of his Prosody.  “PRONUNCIATION is just,” says he, “when every letter has its proper sound, and when every syllable has its proper accent, or which in English versification is the same, its proper quantity.”—­ Johnson’s Gram., before Dict., 4to, p. 13; John Burn’s Gram., p. 240; Jones’s Prosodial Gram., before Dict., p. 10.  Now our most common notion of accent—­the sole notion with many—­and that which the accentuation of Johnson himself everywhere inculcates—­is, that it belongs not to “every syllable,” but only to some particular syllables, being either “a stress of voice on a certain syllable,” or a small mark to denote such stress.—­See Scott’s Dict., or Worcester’s.  But Dr. Johnson, in the passage above, must have understood the word accent agreeably to his own imperfect definition of it; to wit, as “the sound given to the syllable pronounced.”—­Joh.  Dict. An unaccented syllable must have been to him a syllable unpronounced.  In short he does not appear to have recognized any syllables as being unaccented.  The word unaccented had no place in his lexicography, nor could have any without inconsistencey. [sic—­KTH] It was unaptly added to his text, after sixty years, by one of his amenders, Todd or Chalmers; who still blindly neglected to amend his definition of accent.  In these particulars, Walker’s dictionaries exhibit