. . . we do pray for mercy,
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy.
The thought words, as the author sees them, are here italicized, but his reading of the lines differs from any he has heard from the stage or seen marked by critics. The great tendency is to come down hard on the word deeds, whereas it is one of the least important words in the entire sentence; it might be omitted without injury to the thought or the sense. Mr. Alfred Ayres, from whose work, Acting and Actors, the author has before quoted, advises the laying of the stress on the word all; but there is no better reason for emphasizing that word than there is for placing the stress upon deeds. The passage in the prayer to which Portia refers is: “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors,” this being a clear statement of the supplicant’s understanding of the necessity of his forgiving his debtors if he is to entertain the hope of having his debts forgiven by the heavenly Father. The verse following the Lord’s prayer more clearly brings out this idea: “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.”[5] The words “pray” and “render” are, therefore, the thought words—by means of their contrast they bring out the idea—and for this reason they require the emphasis. A paraphrase will demonstrate the correctness of this statement: We ask for mercy, and that prayer tells us to give mercy. The receiving of mercy being contingent on the granting of it.
combined use of inflection and emphasis
Inflection and emphasis, as before stated, are two of the principal means at the disposal of a speaker for the interpretation of thought. By these two means of expression, and the use of the proper color-tone in the voice, the thought can be clearly conveyed. By inflection and emphasis, words, phrases, and sentences are contrasted, and by means of contrast the mind of the listener is directed to the point that the speaker wishes him to see; as,
I propose, then, in what follows to make some remarks on communion with God, or prayer in a large sense of the word; not as regards its external consequences, but as it may be considered to affect our own minds and hearts.
—Cardinal Newman
The speaker states that he does not intend to discuss prayer so far as its external consequences are concerned; and if he stopped there, we should know what he intended not to discuss; but when he adds the positive, “but as it may be considered to affect our own minds and hearts,” we know exactly what he intends to avoid and what he intends to take up, and this double knowledge is imparted to us by means of the contrast that the Cardinal uses. It is very well to tell a person not to do a certain thing, but it is much stronger and more comprehensive if he is also told what to do. It is all well and good to be told what will not justify action on one’s part, but it is far better to be told what will; as,
It is the apprehension of impending harm, and not its actual existence, which constitutes the justification for defensive action.
—Sargent S. Prentiss
Here we are told that both the existence and apprehension of bodily harm will justify defensive action, and the point is, therefore, placed beyond misunderstanding by means of contrast.