Institutio Oratoria
Quintilian
Quintilian. Institutio Oratoria, Volume 1-4. Butler, Harold Edgeworth, translator. Cambridge, Mass; London: Harvard University Press, William Heinemann Ltd., 1920-1922.
A third form of ambiguity is caused by the use of compound words; for example, if a man orders his body to be buried in a cultivated spot, and should direct, as is often done, a considerable space of land surrounding his tomb to be taken from the land left to his heirs with a view to preserving his ashes from outrage, an occasion for dispute may be afforded by the question whether the words mean
in a cultivated place( in culto loco ) or
in an uncultivated place( inculto loco ).
Thus arises the Greek theme
Or it may arise from the arrangement of the words,
- I say that you, O prince of Aeacus' line,
- Rome can o'erthrow.
which makes it doubtful what the exact reference of some word or words may be, more especially when there is a word in the middle of the sentence which may be referred either to what precedes or what follows, as in the line of Virgil [*](Aen. i. 477. ) which describes Troilus as
where it may be disputed whether the poet means that he is still holding the reins, or that, although he holds the reins, he is still dragged along.
- lora tenens tamen,
The controversial theme,
A certain man in his will ordered his heirs to erect statuam auream hastam tenentem,'turns on a similar ambiguity; for it raises the question whether it is the statue holding the spear which is to be of gold, or whether the spear should be of gold and the statue of some other material. The same result is even more frequently produced by a mistaken inflexion of the voice, as in the line:
- quinquaginta uhi erant centum inde occidit Achilles. [*](Achilles slew fifty out of a hundred,ora hundred out of fifty. Translated from a Greek line in Arist. Soph. El. i. 4. ( πεντήκοντ᾽ ἀνδρῶν ἑκατὸν λίπε δῖος ). Quinquaginta is the object of occidit. Faulty reading might make it go with ubi erant, leaving centum as the object of occidit, and making nonsense of the line. )
It is also often doubtful to which of two antecedents a phrase is to be referred. Hence we get such
My heir shall be bound to give my wife a hundred pounds of silver according to choice,where it is left uncertain which of the two is to make the choice. But in these examples of ambiguity, the first may be remedied by a change of case, the second by separating 1 the words or altering their position, the third by some addition. [*](See § 11.)
Ambiguity resulting from the use of two accusatives may be removed by the substitution of the ablative: for example, Lachetem audivi percussisse Demeam (I heard that Demea struck Laches, or that L. struck D.) may be rendered clear by writing a Lachete percussum Demeam (that D. was struck by L.). There is, however, a natural ambiguity in the ablative case itself, as I pointed out in the first book. [*](I. vii. 3.) For example, caelo decurrit aperto [*]( Apparently a misquotation of Virg. Aen. v. 212, pelago decurrit aperto. ) leaves it doubtful whether the poet means he hastened down
through the open sky,or
when the sky was opened for him to pass.
Words may be separated by a breathing space or pause. We may, for instance, say statuam, and then, after a slight pause, add auream hastam, or the pause may come between statuam auream and haslam. The addition referred to above would take the form quod elegerit ipse, where ipse will show that the reference to the heir, or quod elegerit ipsa, making the reference to the wife. In cases where ambiguity is caused by the addition of a word, the difficulty may be eliminated by the removal of a word, as in the sentence nos flentes illos deprehendimus. [*]( Does this mean we found them weeping, or we found them weeping for us? The ambiguity is eliminated by the removal of nos. )
Where it is doubtful to what a word or phrase refers, and the word or phrase itself is ambiguous, we shall have to alter several words, as, for example, in the sentence,
My heir shall be bound to give him all his ownwherev7-9 p.161property,
his ownis ambiguous. Cicero commits the same fault when he says of Gaius Fannius, [*](Brut. xxvi. 101. The sentence continues, (an act of which Laelius said by way of excuse that he had given the augurship not to his younger son-in-law, but to his elder daughter), Fannius, I say, despite his lack of affection for Laelius, in obedience to his instructions attended the lectures of Panaetius. )
He following the instructions of his father-in-law, for whom, because he had not been elected to the college of augurs, he had no great affection, especially as he had given Quintus Scaevola, the younger of his sons-in-law, the preference over himself. .For over himself may refer either to his father-in-law or to Fannius.
Again, another source of ambiguity arises from leaving it doubtful in a written document whether a syllable is long or short. Cato, for example, means one thing in the nominative when its second syllable is short, and another in the dative or ablative when the same syllable is long. [*](sc. of the adjective catus, shrewd. ) There are also a number of other forms of ambiguity which it is unnecessary for me to describe at length.
Further, it is quite unimportant how ambiguity arises or how it is remedied. For it is clear in all cases that two interpretations are possible, and as far as the written or spoken word is concerned, it is equally important for both parties. It is therefore a perfectly futile rule which directs us to endeavour, in connexion with this basis, to turn the word in question to suit our own purpose, since, if this is feasible, there is no ambiguity.