There are those who argue that “lip” and “eye” should not be emphasized. This is a serious error. The phrases “on her lip” and “in her eye” are elaborative, and hence the emphasis is distributed over the entire phrase. If this is wrong, we must blame the writer for tautology. But literature has many similar examples. Here is another:
Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him: and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet.—Luke xv. 22.
There is a rule telling us to emphasize words in antithesis. In many cases we do so; but these cases would emphasize themselves, so to speak. There are, however, many cases of rhetorical antithesis where it interferes with the sense to emphasize both members of the antithesis, and here the rule steps in to lead astray the pupil. To illustrate: “I am going to town to-morrow, but you need not go until the day after.”
Mr. A. Melville Bell has put this very clearly. In his Essays and Postscripts on Elocution, he says:
The emphasis of contrast falls necessarily on the second of a contrasted pair of words, but not necessarily on the first. The first word is emphatic or otherwise, according as it is new, or implied in preceding thoughts; but it is not emphatic in virtue of subsequent contrast. A purposed anticipation may give emphasis to the first word, but such anticipatory emphasis should not be made habitual.
If the bright blood that fills my veins, transmitted free from godlike ancestry, were like the slimy ooze which stagnates in your arteries, I had remained at home.
Is it not clear that the anticipatory emphasis on “my” is not only unnecessary, but would, if given, weaken the force of the succeeding phrase?
I have nothing more to say, but the honorable gentleman will no doubt speak for hours.
What could I do less; what could he do more?
Messala. It is but change, Titinius; for Octavius