Of perspicuity.

in elocution, that equivocal terms ought ever 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 averdupois. 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 reflection from his reader. But I shall proceed to illustrate, by examples, the fault of which I am treating.. An equivocation, then, may lie either in a single word or in a phrase.

As to the former, there is scarce 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

Sect. II.

The double meaning....Part I. Equivocation.

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 sig nification, there will also, in certain circumstances, arise a double sense. You have an example in these words of Swift: "A little after the reformation 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.

*Romans viii. 38. &c.

Mechan. Operat.

66

Of perspicuity.

My next instance shall be in the conjunctions :

They were both much more ancient among the Per"sians than Zoroaster or Zerdusht *." 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 fol. lows an article, or a preposition, or both, the article or the preposition, or both, should be repeated before the second, when the two nouns are intended to de- · note 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 sus tain a material injury, by his omitting both the conjunction and the synonymo.

* Bol. Subst. of Letters to Mr de Pouilly.

Sect. II.

The double meaning....Part I. Equivocation.

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 "last all hopes of any future excises by their consump “tion †." 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 Your majesty has lost all hopes of levying 66 any future excises on what they shall consume."

thus:

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 danger. Thus we say, a mortal poison, a mortal wound, a mortal disease, or a mortal enemy;

*Idea of a Patriot King. † Guardian, No. 52. Ib. No. 61.

Of perspicuity.

but the phrases mortal creature, mortal animal, or mortal man, are always understood to imply creature, animal, or man, liable to death.

IN verbs: The next refuge was to say, it was "overlooked by one man, and many passages wholly "written by another t." The word overlooked sometimes signifies revised, and sometimes neglected. As it seems to be in the former sense that this participle is used here, the word revised ought to have been preferred. Another instance in verbs: "I have fur"nished the house exactly according to your fancy,

or, if you please, my own; for I have long since "learnt to like nothing but what you do §." The word do in this passage may be either the auxiliary, or, as it might be termed, the supplementary verb, and be intended only to supersede the repetition of the verb like; or it may be the simple active verb, which answers to the Latin facere, and the French faire.

In the next quotation the homonymous term may be either an adjective or an adverb, and admits a different sense in each acceptation:

Not only Jesuits can equivocate *.

If the word only is here an adverb, the sense is, "To