what I mean: "Thus much I thought fit to pre"mife, before I refume the fubject, which I "have already handled, I mean the naked bofoms. "of our British ladies*." Sometimes, indeed, a thing like this may be faid archly and of defign, in which cafe it falls not under this animadverfion.

Ir was remarked above, that there are not only equivocal words in our language, but equivocal phrafes. Not the leaft, and not the smallest, are of this kind. They are fometimes made to imply not any; as though one should fay, not even the leaft, not so much as the smalleft; and fometimes again to fignify a very great, as though it were expreffed in this manner, far from being the leaft or fmalleft. Thus they are fufceptible of two fignifications that are not only different but contrary. We have an inftance in the following paffage: "Your character of univerfal

66

guardian, joined to the concern you ought to "have for the caufe of virtue and religion, af"fure me, you will not think that clergymen, "when injured, have the least right to your pro"tection ." This fentence hath alfo the difadvantage taken notice of in fome of the preced

* Guardian, No. 116.

Ibid. No. 80.

66

66

ing quotations, that the fenfe not intended by the writer occurs to the reader much more readily than the author's real meaning. Nothing lefs than is another phrafe which, like the two former, is fufceptible of oppofite interpretations. Thus, "He aimed at nothing lefs than the crown," may denote either, Nothing was lefs aimed at by him than the crown;" or, Nothing in"ferior to the crown could fatisfy his ambition." All fuch phrafes ought to be totally laid afide. The expreffion will have mercy is equivocal in the following paffage of the vulgar tranflation of the Bible: "I will have mercy, and not facri"fice*." The expreffion commonly denotes "I will exercise mercy," whereas it is in this place employed to fignify "I require others to "exercise it." The fentiment, therefore, ought to have been rendered here, as we find it expreffed in the prophetical book alluded to, " I de"fire mercy and not facrifice." When the phrase in queftion happens to be followed by the prepofition on or upon before the object, there is nothing equivocal in it, the fenfe being afcertained by the connection.

PART II. Ambiguity.

I COME now to confider that fpecies of double meaning which arifeth, not from the use of equivocal terms, but folely from the conftruction, and which I therefore diftinguished by the name of ambiguity. This, of all the faults against perfpicuity, it is in all languages the most difficult to avoid. There is not one of the parts of fpeech which may not be fo placed, as that, agreeably to the rules of grammar, it may be conftrued with different parts of the fentence, and by confequence made to exhibit different fenfes. Befides, a writer intent upon his fubject, is less apt to advert to those imperfections in his style which occafion ambiguity, than to any other. As no term or phrase he employs, doth of itself suggest the false meaning, a manner of conftruing his words different from that which is expreffive of his fentiment, will not fo readily occur to his thoughts; and yet this erroneous manner of conftruing them, may be the mof obvious to the reader. I fhall give examples of ambiguities in most of the parts of fpeech, beginning with the pronouns,

As the fignification of the pronouns (which by themselves exprefs only fome relation) is afcertained

2

certained merely by the antecedent to which they refer, the greatest care must be taken, if we would exprefs ourselves perfpicuously, that the reference be unquestionable. Yet the greatest care on this article will not always be effectual. There are no rules which either have been, or, I suspect, can be devised in any language, that will in all circumftances fix the relations of the pronouns in fuch a manner as to prevent ambiguity altogether. I fhall inftance first in the pronoun who, begging that the reader will obferve its application in the two following fentences: "Solomon the fon of David, who built the "temple of Jerufalem, was the richest monarch "that ever reigned over the people of God;" and "Solomon the fon of David who was per"fecuted by Saul, was the richest monarch-" In these two sentences, the who is fimilarly fitu-. ated; yet, in the former, it relates to the perfon firft mentioned; in the latter, to the fecond. But this relation to the one or to the other, it would be impoffible for any reader to difcover, who, had not fome previous knowledge of the hiftory. of thofe kings. In fuch cafes, therefore, it is better to give another turn to the fentence. Inftead of the firft, one might fay, "Solomon the "fon of David, and the builder of the temple

"of Jerufalem, was the richest monarch."→→→→ The conjunction and makes the following words relate entirely to Solomon, as nothing had been affirmed concerning David. It is more difficult to avoid the ambiguity in the other instance, without adopting fome circumlocution that will flatten the expreffion. In the ftyle that prevailed in this ifland about two centuries ago, they would have escaped the ambiguous conftruction in fome fuch way as this, "Solomon, the son of David, even of him whom Saul perfecuted, was the richeft" But this phrafeology has, to modern ears, I know not what air of formality that renders it intolerable. Better thus, Solomon, whofe father David was perfecuted "by Saul, was the richeft." The following quotation exhibits a triple fense, arifing from the fame caufe, the indeterminate ufe of the relative:

66

66

Such were the centaurs of Ixion's race,

Who a bright cloud for Juno did embrace t.

Was it the centaurs, or Ixion, or his race, that embraced the cloud? I cannot help obferving further on this paffage, that the relative ought grammatically, for a reafon to be affigned afterwards, rather to refer to centaurs than to either

+ Denham's Progrefs of Learning."

of