notes air, the second, sufficiency and knowledge, and the third, motions of the head and body. 187. From too artificial a structure of the sentence, obscurity may arise. This happens when the structure of the sentence is too much complicated, or too artificial; or when the sense is too long suspended by parentheses. (Scholia, p. 93.) Obs. A short parenthesis, introduced in a proper place, will not in the least hurt the clearness, and may add both to the vivacity, and to the energy, of the sentence. (See Art. 157.) 188. Technical terms, injudiciously introduced, is another source of darkness in composition. (See Art. 84. Illus.) But in treatises on the principles of any art, they are not only convenient, but even necessary. In ridicule too, if used sparingly, as in comedy or romance, they are allowable. (Obs. V. Art. 114.) 189. Long Sentences may be justly accounted liable to obscurity, since it is difficult to extend them, without involving some of the other faults before mentioned. And when a long period does not appear obscure, it will always be remarked, that all its principal members are similar in their structure, and would constitute so many distinct sentences, if they were not limited, by their reference to some common clause in the beginning or the end. (See Art. 138.) CHAPTER V. THE DOUBLE MEANING, OR EQUIVOCATION. 190. THE double meaning. Perspicuity may be violated, not only by obscurity, but also by double meaning. (Art. 119.) Illus. The fault in this case is not that the serience conveys darkly or imperfectly the author's meaning, but that it conveys also some other meaning which is not the author's. His words are susceptible of more than one interpretation. When this happens, it is always occasioned, either by using some expression which is equivocal; that is, which hath more meanings than the one which the author affixes to it; or by ranging the words in such an order, that the construction is rendered equivocal, or made to exhibit different senses. The former we term equivocation, the latter ambiguity. (See Defin. 19. p. 79.) 191. Equivocation. When the word denotes in compo sition, as in common language it generally denotes, the use of an equivocal word, or phrase, or other ambiguity, with an intention to deceive, it differs not essentially from a lie. This offence falls under the reproof of the moralist, not the censure of the rhetorician. 192. Again, when the word denotes, as agreeably it may denote, that exercise of wit which consists in the playful use of any term or phrase in different senses, and which is denominated pun, it is amenable, indeed, to the tribunal of criticism, but it cannot be regarded as a violation of the laws of perspicuity. It is neither with the liar nor the punster that we are concerned at present. 193. The only species of equivocation that comes under reprehension here, is that which takes place, when an author undesignedly employs an expression susceptible of a sense different from the sense he intends it should convey. Obs. This fault has been illustrated in Articles 113, 121, 122, and 123. 194. The equivocation may be either in a single word, or in a phrase. Illus. 1. The preposition of denotes sometimes the relation which any affection bears to its subject ;* sometimes the relation which it bears to its object. Example 1. Hence this expression of the Apostle has been observed to be equivocal: "I am persuaded that neither death nor life shall be able to separate us from the love of God." By the love of God, say interpreters, may be understood, either God's love to us, or our love to God. 2. As the preposition of sometimes denotes the relation of the effect to the cause, sometimes that of the accident to the subject; from this duplicity of signification, there will also, in certain circumstances, arise a double meaning. "A little after the reformation of Luther," is a phrase which suggests as readily a change wrought on Luther as a change wrought by him. But the phraseology is intelligible when we apply the term reformation to the schism which Luther produced in the Catholic Church. Ilus. 2. The conjunctions shall furnish our second illustration. Example. "They were both more ancient among the Persians than Zoroaster or Zerdusht."§ Analysis. The conjunction or is here equivocal. It serves either as a copulative to synonymous words, or as a disjunctive of different things. But Zoroaster and Zerdusht mean the same person, therefore the sentence is equivocal. Corol. 1. If the first noun follows an article or a preposition, or That is, the person whose affection it is. † Romans viii. 38, &c. Swift's Mechanical Operations. Bolingbroke's Substance of Letters to M. de Pouilly. both; the article, or the preposition, or -both, should be repeated before the second, when the two nouns are intended to denote different things; and should not be repeated, when they are intended to denote the same thing. 2. If there be neither article nor preposition before the first, and if it be the intention of the writer to use the particle or disjunctively, let the first noun be preceded by either, which will infallibly ascertain the meaning. 3. On the contrary, if, in such a dubious case, it be his design to use the particle as a copulative to synonymous words, the piece will rarely sustain a material injury, by omitting both the conjunction and synonyma. Illus. 3. Pronouns may also be used equivocally. Example." She united the great body of the people in her and their common interest,"* Analysis. The word her may be either the possessive pronoun, or the accusative case of the personal pronoun. A very small alteration in the order totally removes the doubt. Say," in their and her common interest." The word thus connected, can only be the possessive, as the author doubtless intended it should be in the passage quoted. Illus. 4. Substantives are sometimes used equivocally. Example. "Your Majesty has lost all hopes of any future excises by their consumption."+ Analysis. The word consumption has both an active sense and a passive. It means either the act of consuming, or the state of being con sumed. Correction. "Your Majesty has lost all hopes of levying any future excises on what they shall consume." Illus. 5. Adjectives also are used equivocally. Example. "As for such animals as are mortal or noxious, we have a right to destroy them." Analysis. Indeed! all men are liable to death, and all men are ani mals, but we have no right to destroy each other. The word mortal, therefore, in this sentence might be justly considered as improper; (Art. 117. Illus. 3.) for though it sometimes means destructive, or causing death, it is then almost invariably joined with some noun expressive of hurt or danger. Illus. 6. Verbs often present a false sense more readily than the true. Example. "The next refuge was to say it was overlooked by one man, and many passages wholly written by another."§ Analysis. The word overlooked sometimes signifies revised, and sometimes neglected. But the participle is used here in the former sense, therefore the word revised ought to have been preferred. Illus. 7. In the next quotation the homonymous term may be either an adjective or an adverb, and admits a different sense in each accep tation. Example, "Not only Jesuits can equivocate."|| Analysis. If the word only is here an adverb, the sense is "to equivocate is not the only thing that Jesuits can do." This interpretation, though not Dryden's meaning, suits the construction. The proper and unequivocal meaning, though a prosaic expression of this sense, *Idea of a Patriot King. Spectator, No. 19. † Guardian, No. 52. Ibid. No. 61. is, "Jesuits can not only equivocate." Again, if the word only is here an adjective (and this doubtless is the author's meaning) the sense is, "Jesuits are not the only persons who can equivocate." Illus. 8. Equivocal phrases are such as, not the least, not the smallest, which may signify "not any," as though one should say not even the least, not so much as the smallest; and sometimes again a very great, as though it were expressed in this manner, far from being the least or smallest. Now, since they are susceptible of two significations which are not only different, but contrary, they ought to be totally laid aside. CHAPTER VI. AMBIGUITY. 194. THE double meaning arises, not from the use of equivocal terms, but solely from the construction; and is therefore distinguished by the name ambiguity. (See Art. 190. and Illus. also Art. 151.) Illus. In the use of pronouns, the reference to the antecedent should be so unquestionable, that no false meaning could possibly be sugges ted by the manner of construing the words of which a sentence may be composed. Examples. "Solomon, the son of David, who built the temple at Jerusalem, was the richest monarch that ever reigned over the Jewish people," and "Solomon, the son of David, who was persecuted by Saul, was the richest monarch." Analysis. In these two instances, the who is similarly situated; yet in the former, it relates to the person first mentioned; in the latter, to the second. And some previous knowledge of the history of those kings is necessary to enable any reader to discover this relation to the one or to the other. Correction. "Solomon, the son of David, and the builder of the temple of Jerusalem, was the richest monarch." Example 2. The following quotation exhibits a triple sense, arising from the indeterminate use of the relative. "Such were the contaurs of Ixion's race, Who a bright cloud for Juno did embrace."* Analysis. Who embraced the cloud, the centaurs, Ixion, or his race? The relative ought grammatically to refer rather to the centaurs, than to either of the other two, and least of all to Ixion, to whom it was intended to refer. 195. The relatives who, which, that, whose and whom, often create ambiguity, even when there can be no doubt in regard to the antecedent. Illus. 1. These pronouns are sometimes explicative, sometimes des terminative. They are explicative when they serve merely for the * Denham's Progress of Learning. illustration of the subject, by pointing out either some property, or some circumstance belonging to it, leaving it, however, to be understood in its full extent. Examples. "Man, who is born of a woman, is of few days, and full of trouble." "Godliness, which with contentment is great gain, has the promise both of the present life, and of the future." Analysis. The clause," who is born of a woman," in the first example, and "which with contentment is great gain," in the second, point to certain properties in the antecedent, but do not restrain their signification. For, should we omit these clauses altogether, we could say with equal truth, "Man is of few days, and full of trouble," "Godliness has the promise both of the present life, and of the future." Illus. 2. On the other hand, these pronouns are determinative, when they are employed to limit the import of the antecedent. Examples. "The man that endureth to the end shall be saved.” "The remorse, which issues in reformation, is true repentance." Analysis. Each of the relatives here confines the signification of its antecedent to such only as are possessed of the qualification mentioned. For it is not affirmed of every man that he shall be saved; nor of all remorse, that it is true repentance. 196. From the above examples, it may fairly be collected, that with us the definite article is of great use for discrimi nating the explicative sense from the determinative. In the first case it is rarely used, in the second, it ought never to be omitted, unless when something still more definitive, such as a demonstrative pronoun, supplies its place. (Art. 57. Illus.) Example. "I know that all words which are signs of complex ideas, furnish matter of mistake and cavil.”* Analysis. As words, the antecedent, has neither the article nor a demonstrative pronoun to connect it with the subsequent relative, it should seem that the clause," which are signs of complex ideas," was merely explicative, and that the subject, words, was to be understood in the utmost latitude. This could not be the noble writer's sense, as it would be absurd to affirm of all words, that they are signs of complex ideas. Correction. "I know that all the words which are signs of complex ideas;" or, "I know that all those words which are signs." Either of these ways makes the clause beginning with the relative serve to limit the import of the antecedent. 197. In numberless instances we find the pronouns his and he used, in like manner, ambiguously; and the latter especially when two or more males happen to be mentioned in the same clause of a sentence. Obs. In such a case, we ought always either to give another turn to the expression, or to use the noun itself, and not the pronoun; for when the repetition of the word is necessary, it is not offensive. (l!lus. 3. p. 111. and Art. 152.) * Bolingbroke's Dissertation on Parties, Lect. 12. |