صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

"this union of a body and a soul must be magical in"deed, as Doctor Cudworth calls it, so magical, that the hypothesis serves to no purpose in philosophy, "whatever it may do in theology; and is still less comprehensible, than the hypothesis which assumes, that although our idea of thought be not included in the "idea of matter or body, as the idea of figure is, for in

[ocr errors]

66

66

stance, in that of limited extension; yet the faculty "of thinking, in all the modes of thought, may have "been superadded by Omnipotence, to certain systems "of matter: which it is not less than blasphemy to deny; though divines and philosophers, who deny it "in terms, may be cited; and which, whether it be true " or no, will never be proved false by a little metaphy“sical jargon about essences, and attributes, and modes.” * The other quotation is from Swift's letter to the Lord High Treasurer, containing a proposal for correcting, improving, and ascertaining the English tongue: "To this "succeeded that licentiousness which entered with the "Restoration, and from infecting our religion and mo

66

[ocr errors]

rals, fell to corrupt our language, (which last was not "like to be much improved by those who at that time "made up the court of king Charles the Second; either "such who had followed him in his banishment; or "who had been altogether conversant in the dialect of "those fanatic times; or young men who had been "educated in the same company), so that the court (which used to be the standard of propriety and cor"rectness of speech) was then (and, I think, hath ever "since continued) the worst school in England for that "accomplishment; and so will remain, till better care "be taken in the education of our young nobility, that "they may set out into the world with some foundation. "of literature, in order to qualify them for patterns of politeness." There are indeed, cases in which even a long period will not create obscurity. When this happens, it may almost always be remarked, that all the

66

Essa i. Sect. 2.

principal members of the period are similar in their structure, and would constitute so many distinct sentences, if they were not united by their reference to some common clause in the beginning or the end.

SECTION II.-The double meaning.

It was observed, that perspicuity might be violated, not only by obscurity, but also by double meaning. The fault in this case is not that the sentence 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, bath more meanings than one affixed to it; or by ranging the words in such an order, that the construction is rendered equivocal, or made to exhibit different senses. To the former, for distinction's sake, I shall assign the name of equivocation; to the latter, I shall appropriate that of ambiguity,

PART I.-Equivocation.

I begin with the first. When the word equivocation denotes, as in common language it generally denotes, the use of an equivocal word or phrase, or other ambiguity, with an intention to deceive, it doth not differ essentially from a lie. This offence falls under the reproof of the moralist, not the censure of the rhetorician. Again, when the word denotes, as agreeably to etymology it may denote, that exercise of wit which consists in the playful use of any term or phrase in different senses, and is denominated pun, it is amenable indeed to the tribunal of criticism, but cannot be regarded as a violation of the laws of perspicuity. It is neither with the liar nor with the punster that I am concerned at present, 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 to convey by it.

In order to avoid this fault, no writer or speaker can think of disusing all the homonymous terms of the language, or all such as have more than one signification. To attempt this in any tongue, ancient or modern, would be to attempt the annihilation of the greater part of the language; for in every language, the words strictly univocal will be found to be the smaller number. But it must be admitted, as a rule in elocution, that equivocal terms ought never to be avoided, unless where their connexion with the other words of the sentence instantly ascertains the meaning. This, indeed, the connexion is often so capable of effecting, that the hearer will never reflect that the word is equivocal, the true sense being the only sense which the expression suggests to his mind. Thus the word pound signifies both the sum of twenty shillings sterling, and the weight of sixteen ounces avoirdupois. Now if you should tell me, that you rent a house at fifty pounds, or that you have bought fifty pounds of meat in the market, the idea of weight will never present itself to my mind in the one case, or the idea of money in the other. But it frequently happens, through the inadvertency of writers, that the connected words in the sentence do not immediately ascertain the sense of the equivocal term. And though an intelligent reader may easily find the sense on reflection, and, with the aid of the context, we may lay it down as a maxim, that an author always offends against perspicuity, when his style requires that reflexion from his reader. But I shall proceed to illustrate, by examples the fault of which I am treating. An equivocation, thẹn, may be either in a single word or in a phrase.

As to the former, there is scarcely any of the parts of speech in which you will not find equivocal terms. To begin with particles; the preposition of denotes sometimes the relation which any affection bears to its subject; that is, the person whose affection it is; sometimes the relation which it bears to its object. Hence this expression of the apostle hath 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: It is remarkable, that the genitive case in the ancient languages, and the prepositions corresponding to that case in the modern languages, are alike susceptible of this double meaning. Only as to our own language, we may observe in passing, that of late the preposition of is more commonly put before the subject, and to before the object of the passion. But this is not the only way in which the preposition of may be equivocal. As it 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 sense. You have an example in these words of Swift: "A little after the refor

mation of Luther +."-It may indeed be doubted, whether this should not rather be called an impropriety, since the reformation of a man will suggest much more readily a change wrought on the man, than a change wrought by him. And the former of these senses it could not more readily suggest, if the expression in that sense were not more conformable to use.

66

66

My next instance shall be in the conjunctions; They were both much more ancient among the Persians "than Zoroaster or Zerdusht t." The or here is equivocal. It serves either as a copulative to synonymous words, or as a disjunctive of different things. If, therefore, the reader should not know that Zoroaster and Zerdusht mean the same person, he will mistake the sense. In coupling appellatives, there is not the same hazard, it being generally manifest to those who know the language, whether the words coupled have the same signification. If, nevertheless, in any case it should be doubtful, an attention to the ensuing rules may have its utility. If the first noun follows an article, or a preposiRomans, viii. 38, &c. + Mechan. Operat Bol. Subst. of Letters to Mr de Pouilly.

tion, or 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. 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. 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 his omitting both the conjunction and the synonyma.

[ocr errors]

The following is an example in the pronouns : "She "united the great body of the people in her and their common interest *." 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 her thus connected, can be only the possessive, as the author doubtless intended it should be, in the passage quoted.

An example in substantives: "Your Majesty has "lost all hopes of any future excises by their consump"tion t." The word consumption has both an active sense and a passive. It means either the act of consuming, or the state of being consumed. Clearly thus: "Your Majesty has lost all hopes of levying any future "excises on what they shall consume."

66

In adjectives: "As for such animals as are mortal, or noxious, we have a right to destroy them ." Here the false sense is suggested more readily than the true. The word mortal, therefore, in this sentence, might justly be considered as improper; for though it sometimes means destructive, or causing death, it is then almost invariably joined with some noun expressive of hurt or + Guardian, No. 52.

Idea of a Patriot King.

Guardian, No. 61.
RR

« السابقةمتابعة »