"Thus the faundoubtedly good: Thus his son ad

addressed his father;" for the second, "ther addressed his son;" are whereas to say in lieu of the first, "dressed the father;" and in lieu of the second, "Thus "his father addressed the son," are not English, "are By the English idiom, therefore, the possessive pronoun is, in such instances, more properly joined to the regimen of the verb than to the nominative. If this practice were universal, as it is both natural and suitable to the genius of our tongue, it would always indicate the construction wherever the possessive pronoun could be properly introduced. For this reason I consider the two following lines as much clearer of the charge of ambiguity than the former quotation from the same work :

Young Itylus, his parent's darling joy,

Whom chance misled the mother to destroy".

For though the words whom and the mother are both in the accusative, the one as the regimen of the active verb misled, the other as the regimen of the active verb destroy, yet the destroyer or agent is conceived in the natural order as preceding the destroyed or patient. If, therefore, the last line had been,

Whom chance misled his mother to destroy;

it would have more naturally imported, that the son destroyed his mother; as it stands, it more naturally imports, agreeably to the poet's design, that the mother destroyed her son; there being in this last case no access for the possessive pronoun. I acknowledge, however, that uniform usage cannot, (though both analogy and utility may) be pleaded in favour of the distinction now made. I therefore submit entirely to the candid and judicious, the propriety of observing it for the future.

The following is an example of ambiguity in using conjunctions: "At least my own private letters leave room for a politician, well versed in matters of this na

Pope's Odyssey, Book 19.

TT

66

"ture, to suspect as much, as a penetrating friend of "mine tells me*." The particle as, which in this sentence immediately precedes the word a penetrating friend, makes frequently a part of these compound conjunctions as much as, as well as, as far as.-It will therefore naturally appear at first to belong to the words as much, which immediately precede it. But as this is not really the case, it ought to have been otherwise situated; for it is not enough that it is separated by a comma, these small distinctions in the pointing being but too frequently overlooked. Alter the arrangement then, and the expression will be no longer ambiguous: "At least my own private letters, as a penetrating friend of mine "tells me, leave room for a politician well versed in mat"ters of this nature to suspect as much." In the succeeding passage the same author gives us an example of ambiguity, in the application of an adverb and a conjunction: "I beseech you, sir, to inform these fellows, "that they have not the spleen, because they cannot talk "without the help of a glass, or convey their meaning "to each other without the interposition of cloudst." The ambiguity here lies in the two words not and because. What follows because appears, on the first hearing, to be the reason why the person here addressed, is desired to inform these fellows, that they are not splenetic; on the second, it appears to be the reason why people ought to conclude, that they are not; and on the third, the author seems only intending to signify, that this is not a sufficient reason to make any body conclude that they are. This error deserves our notice the more, that it is often to be found even in our best writers.

Sometimes a particular expression is so situated, that it may be construed with more or less of another particular expression which precedes it in the sentence, and may consequently exhibit different senses: "He has, by some strange magic, arrived at the value of half a plumb, as the citizens call a hundred thousand pounds.”

66.

66

Spect. No. 43.

+ Ibid. No. 53.

“* Is it a plumb, or half a plumb, which the citizens "call a hundred thousand pounds?" "I will spend a "hundred or two pounds, rather than be enslaved." † This is another error of the same sort, but rather worse Hundred cannot regularly be understood between the adjective two and its substantive pounds. Besides, the indefinite article a cannot properly express one side of the alternative, and supply the place of a numeral adjective opposed to two. The author's meaning would have been better expressed either of these ways: "I will "spend one or two hundred pounds," or, " I will spend one hundred pounds or two, rather than be enslaved." In the former case it is evident, that the words hundred pounds belong to both numeral adjectives; in the latter, that they are understood after the second. The reference and construction of the concluding words in the next quotation, is very indefinitive; "My christian and surname begin and end with the same letters ." Doth his christian name begin with the same letter that his surname begins with, and ends with the same letter that his surname ends with? or, Doth his christian name end with the same letter with which it begins, and his surname also ends with the same letter with which it begins? or, lastly, Are all these four letters, the first and the last of each name, the same letter§?

Sometimes a particular clause or expression is so situated, that it may be construed with different members of the sentence, and thus exhibit different meanings: "It has not a word," says Pope," but what the author "religiously thinks in it." One would at first imagine his meaning to be, that it had not a word which the author did not think to be in it. Alter a little the place of the two last words, and the ambiguity will be removed: "It has not a word in it, but what the author re

• Tatler, No. 40.

+ Swift to Sheridan.

Spectator, No. 505. O.

§ An example of the first, is Andrew Askew, of the second, Hezekiah_Thrift, and of the third Norman Neilson.

HGuardian, No. 4.

26

ligiously thinks." Of the same kind also is the subsequent quotation: "Mr Dryden makes a very handsome observation on Ovid's writing a letter from Dido to "Eneas, in the following words. *" Whether are the following words, the words of Dido's letter, or of Dryden's observation? Before you read them, you will more readily suppose them to be the words of the letter; after reading them, you find they are the words of the observation. The order ought to have been," Mr Dry"den, in the following words, makes a very handsome "observation on Ovid's writing a letter from Dido to "Eneas."

I shall conclude this section with an instance of that kind of ambiguity which the French call a squinting construction t; that is, when a clause is so situated in a sentence, that one is at first at a loss to know whether it ought to be connected with the words which go before, or with those which come after. Take the following passage for an example: " As it is necessary to have "the head clear as well as the complexion, to be perfect "in this part of learning, I rarely mingle with the men, "but frequently the tea-tables of the ladies t." Whether, "To be perfect in this part of learning, is it necessary to have the head clear as well as the complexion;" or, "To be perfect in this part of learning, does he rare"ly mingle with the men, but frequently the tea-tables "of the ladies?" Which ever of these be the sense, the words ought to have been otherwise ranged.

SECTION III.-The Unintelligible.

I have already considered two of the principal and most common offences against perspicuity; and come now to make some remarks on the third and last offence, mentioned in the enumeration formerly given. It was observed, that a speaker may not only express himself obscurely, and so convey his meaning imperfectly to the mind of the hearer, that he may not only express him

*Spect. No. 62.

+ Construction louche.

Guardian, No. 10.

self ambiguously, and so along with his own, convey a meaning entirely different; but even express himself unintelligibly, and so convey no meaning at all. One would, indeed, think it hardly possible, that a man of sense, who perfectly understands the language which he useth, should ever speak or write in such a manner as to be altogether unintelligible. Yet this is what frequently happens. The cause of this fault in any writer, I take to be always one or other of the three following; first, great confusion of thought, which is commonly accompanied with intricacy of expression; secondly, affectation of excellence in the diction; thirdly, a total want of meaning. I do not mention as one of the causes of this imputation, a penury of language; though this, doubtless, may contribute to produce it. In fact I never found one who had a justness of apprehension, and was free from affectation, at a loss to make himself understood in his native tongue, even though he had little command of language, and made but a bad choice of words

PART I. From confusion of thought.

The first cause of the unintelligible in composition, is confusion of thought. Language, as hath been already observed, is the medium through which the sentiments of the writer are perceived by the reader. And though the impurity or the grossness of the medium will render the image obscure or indistinct, yet no purity in the medium will suffice for exhibiting a distinct and unvarying image of a confused and unsteady object. There is a sort of half-formed thoughts, which we sometimes find writers impatient to give the world, before they themselves are fully possessed of them. Now if the writer himself perceive confusedly and imperfectly the sentiments he would communicate, it is a thousand to one, the reader will not perceive them at all. But how then, it may be asked, shall he be qualified for discovering the cause, and distinguishing in the writer between a confusion of thought, and a total want of meaning? I an