but it is not in this respect only that it resembles it. Both are best illustrated by showing the different ways wherein they may be lost. It is for these reasons that, though perspicuity be more properly a rhetorical than a grammatical quality, I thought it better to include it in this book, which treats of the foundations and essential or universal properties of elocution, than to class it with those which are purely discriminative of particular styles. Indeed, if language were capable of absolute perfection, which it evidently is not; if words and things could be rendered exact counterparts to each other; if every different thing in nature had a different symbol by which it were expressed; and every difference in the relations of things had a corresponding difference in the combinations of words, purity alone would secure perspicuity, or rather these two would entirely coincide. To speak grammatically would, in that case, convey infallibly and perspicuously the full meaning of the speaker, if he had any meaning, into the mind of every hearer who perfectly understands the language. There would not be even a possibility of mistake or doubt. But the case is widely different with all the languages that ever were, are, or will be in the world. Grammatical purity, in every tongue, conduceth greatly to perspicuity, but it will by no means secure it. A man may in respect of it speak unexceptionably, and yet speak obscurely, or ambiguously; and though we cannot say that a man may speak properly, and at the same time speak unintelligibly, yet this last case falls more naturally to be considered as an offence against perspicuity than as a violation of propriety. For when the meaning is not discovered the particular impropriety cannot be pointed out. In the three different ways, therefore, just now mentioned, perspicuity may be violated. SECTION I.-The Obscure. PART I.-From Defect. This is the first offence against perspicuity, and may arise from several causes. First, from some defect in the expression. There are in all languages certain elliptical expressions which use hath established, and which, therefore, very rarely occasion darkness. When they do occasion it, they ought always to be avoided. Such are, in Greek and Latin, the frequent supression of the substantive verb, and of the possessive pronouns ; I was going to add, and of the personal pronouns also: but, on reflection, I am sensible that, in the omission of them in the nominative, there is properly no ellipsis, as the verb, by its in flection, actually expresses them. Accordingly, in these languages, the pronoun in the nominative is never rightly introduced, unless when it is emphatical. But the idiom of most modern tongues, English and French particularly, will seldom admit such ellipsis1. In Italian and Spanish they are pretty frequent. Öften, indeed, the affectation of conciseness, often the ra pidity of thought natural to some writers, will give rise to still more material defects in the expression. Of these I shall produce a few examples: "He is inspired," says an eminent writer, "with a true sense of that function, when chosen from a regard to the interests of piety and virtue." Sense in this passage denotes an inward feeling, or the impression which some sentiment makes upon the mind. Now a function cannot be a sentiment impressed or felt. The expression is therefore defective, and ought to have been, "He is inspired with a true sense of the dignity, or of the importance of that function.""You ought to contemn all the wit in the world against you3." As the writer doth not intend to signify that all the wit in the world is actually exerted against the person whom he addresses, there is a defect in the expression, though perhaps it will be thought chargeable with redundancy at the same time. More plainly thus, "You ought to contemn all the wit that can be employed against you."-" He talks all the way up stairs to a visit." There is here also a faulty omission, which, if it cannot be said to obscure the sense, doth at least withhold that light whereof it is susceptible. If the word visit ever meant person or people, there would be an ambiguity in the sentence, and we should imagine this the object talked to; but as that 1 The French, I imagine, have gone to the other extreme. They require in many instances repetition of pronouns, prepositions, and articles, which, as they add nothing to the perspicuity, must render the expression languid. There are some cases in which this repetition is consequential on the very construction of their language. For example, we say properly in English, my father and mother because the possessive pronoun, having no distinction of gender, and so having but one form, is alike applicable to both: the case being different with them renders it necessary to follow a different rule, and to say mon père et ma mère. But it is not to instances of this sort that the rule is limited. Custom with them hath extended it to innumerable cases, wherein there is no necessity from construction. With us it is enough to say, "She was robbed of her clothes and jewels." With them the preposition and the pronoun must both be repeated, de ses habits et de ses joyaux. Again, with them it is not sufficient to say, 'The woman whom you know and love,' but whom you know and whom you love-que vous connoissez et que vous aimez. In like manner, the relatives in French must never be omitted. They often are in English, and when the omission occasions no obscurity it is not accounted improper. An expression like this would in their tongue be intolerable: "You are obliged to say and do all you can." It must be "to say and to do all that which you can,"—de dire et de faire tout ce que vous savez. But though in several instances the critics of that nation have refined on their language to excess, and by needless repetitions have sometimes enervated the expression, their criticisms, when useful in assisting us to shun any obscu rity or ambiguity, deserve to be adopted. Guardian, No. 13. 4 Spect. No. 2. 3 Ibid. No. 53. cannot be the case, the expression is rather to be accounted lame, there being no verb in it with which the words to a visit can be construed. More explicitly thus, " He talks all the way as he walks up stairs to make a visit."-" Arbitrary power," says an elegant writer, "I look upon as a greater evil than anarchy itself, as much as a savage is a happier state of life than a slave at the oar5." Neither savage nor slave can be denominated a state of life, though the states in which they live may properly be compared.-"This courage among the adversaries of the court," says the same writer in another piece, "was inspired into them by various incidents, for every one of which, I think, the ministers, or, if that was the case, the minister alone is to answer"." If that was the case, pray, what is he supposing to have been the case? To the relative that I can find no antecedent, and am left to guess that he means, if there was but one minister." When a man considers not only an ample fortune, but even the very necessaries of life, his pretence to food itself, at the mercy of others, he cannot but look upon himself in the state of the dead, with his case thus much worse, that the last office is performed by his adversaries instead of his friends"." There is a double ellipsis in this sentence. You must first supply as being before the words at the mercy, and insert as before in the state of the dead." I beg of you," says Steele, "never let the glory of our nation, who made France tremble, and yet has the gentleness to be unable to bear opposition from the meanest of his own countrymen, be calumniated in so impudent a manner, as in the insinuation that he affected a perpetual dictatorship." At first reading, one is at a loss to find an antecedent to the pronouns who, his, and he. One reflection one discovers that the phrase the glory of our nation is figurative, and denotes a certain illustrious personage. The trope is rather too adventurous, without some softening clause, to suit the idiom of our tongue. The sense would have appeared immediately, had he said, "Never let the man, who may justly be styled the glory of our nation." The instances now given will suffice to specify the obscurities in style which arise from deficiency. The same evil may also be occasioned by excess. But as this almost invariably offends vivacity, and only sometimes produceth darkness, there will be a more proper occasion of considering it afterwards. Another cause of obscurity is a bad choice of words. When it is this alone which renders the sentence obscure, there is always ground for the charge of impropriety, which hath been discussed already. 5 Sentiments of a Church of England Man. Guardian, No. 53. PART II. From bad Arrangement. Another source of obscurity is a bad arrangement of the words. In this case the construction is not sufficiently clear. One often, on first hearing the sentence, imagines, from the turn of it, that it ought to be construed one way, and on reflection finds that he must construe it another way. Of this, which is a blemish too common even in the style of our best writers, I shall produce a few examples: "It contained," says Swift, "a warrant for conducting me and my retinue to Traldragdubb or Trildrogdrib, for it is pronounced both ways, as near as I can remember, by a party of ten horse.” The words by a party of ten horse must be construed with the participle conducting, but they are placed so far from this word, and so near the verb pronounced, that at first they suggest a meaning perfectly ludicrous. "I had several men died in my ship of calentures1." The preposition of must be construed with the verb died, and not, as the first appearance would suggest, with the noun ship immediately preceding. More clearly thus, "I had several men in my ship who died of calentures." I shall remark, by the way, that though the relatives who and which may, agreeably to the English idiom, be sometimes omitted in the oblique cases, to omit them in the nominative, as in the passage last quoted, almost always gives a maimed appearance to the expression. "I perceived it had been scoured with half an eye." The situation of the last phrase, which is besides a very bad one, is liable to the same exception. "I have hopes that when Will confronts him, and all the ladies in whose behalf he engages him cast kind looks and wishes of success at their champion, he will have some shame3." It is impossible not to imagine, on hearing the first part of the sentence, that Will is to confront all the ladies,-though afterwards we find it necessary to construe this clause with the following verb. This confusion is removed at once by repeating the adverb when, thus, "I have hopes that when Will confronts him, and when all the ladies cast kind looks." The subsequent sentence is liable to the same exception: "He advanced against the fierce ancient, imitating his address, his pace and career, as well as the vigour of his horse and his own skill would allow1." The clause as well as the vigour of his horse appears at first to belong to the former part of the sentence, and is afterwards found to belong to the latter. In all the above instances of bad arrangement, there is what may be justly termed a constructive 9 Voyage to Laputa. 1 Voyage to the Houyhnhyms. ambiguity; that is, the words are so disposed in point of order as would render them really ambiguous if, in that construction which the expression first suggests, any meaning were exhibited. As this is not the case, the faulty order of the words cannot be properly considered as rendering the sentence ambiguous, but obscure. It may indeed be argued that, in these and the like examples, the least reflection in the reader will quickly remove the obscurity. But why is there any obscurity to be removed? Or why does the writer require more attention from the reader, or the speaker from the hearer, than is absolutely necessary? It ought to be remembered that whatever application we must give to the words is, in fact, so much deducted from what we owe to the sentiments. Besides, the effort that is exerted in a very close attention to the language always weakens the effect which the thoughts were intended to produce in the mind. "By perspicuity," as Quintilian justly observes, "care is taken, not that the hearer may understand, if he will; but that he must understand, whether he will or not5." Perspicuity originally and properly implies transparency, such as may be ascribed to air, glass, water, or any other medium through which material objects are viewed. From this original and proper sense it hath been metaphorically applied to language, this being, as it were, the medium through which we perceive the notions and sentiments of a speaker. Now, in corporeal things, if the medium through which we look at any object be perfectly transparent, our whole attention is fixed on the object; we are scarcely sensible that there is a medium which intervenes, and can hardly be said to perceive it. But if there be any flaw in the medium, if we see through it but dimly, if the object be imperfectly represented, or if we know it to be misrepresented, our attention is immediately taken off the object, to the medium. We are then desirous to discover the cause either of the dim and confused representation, or of the misrepresentation of things which it exhibits, that so the defect in vision may be supplied by judgment. The case of language is precisely similar. A discourse, then, excels in perspicuity, when the subject engrosses the attention of the hearer, and the diction is so little minded by him that he can scarcely be said to be conscious that it is through this medium he sees into the speaker's thoughts. On the contrary, the least obscurity, ambiguity, or confusion in the style, instantly removes the attention from the sentiment to the expression, and the hearer endeavours, by the aid of reflection, to correct the imperfections of the speaker's language. 5 Non ut intelligere possit, sed ne omnino possit non intelligere curandum. stit. Lib. viii. Cap. 2. In |