View:
By Section
[1] Clearness results above all from
propriety in the use of words. But
propriety is capable of more than one interpretation. In its primary sense it means calling things by their right names, and is consequently sometimes to be avoided, for our language must not be obscene, unseemly or mean.
[2] Language may be described as mean when it is beneath the dignity of the subject or the rank of the speaker. Some orators fall into serious error in their eagerness to avoid this fault, and are afraid of all words that are in ordinary use, even although they may be absolutely necessary for their purpose. There was, for example, the man who in the course of a speech spoke of
Iberian grass,
a meaningless phrase intelligible only to himself. Cassius Severus, however, by way of deriding his affectation, explained that he meant Spanish broom. [3] Nor do I see why a certain distinguished orator thought
fishes conserved in brine
a more elegant phrase than the word which he avoided.
1
But while there is no special merit in the form of
propriety which consists in calling things by their real names, it is a fault to fly to the opposite extreme. This fault we call
impropriety,[4] while the Greeks call it
ἄκυρον As examples I may cite the Virgilian,
2
Never could I have hoped for such great woe,
or the phrase, which I noted had been corrected by Cicero in a speech of Dolabella's,
To bring death,
or again, phrases of a kind that win praise from some of our contemporaries, such as,
His words fell from the cross.
3
On the other hand, everything that lacks appropriateness will not necessarily suffer from the fault of positive
impropriety, because there are, in the first place, many things which have no proper term either in Greek or Latin. [5] For example, the verb
iaculari is specially used in the sense of
to throw a javelin,
whereas there is no special verb appropriated to the throwing of a ball or a stake. So, too, while
lapidare has the obvious meaning of
to stone,
there is no special word to describe the throwing of clods or potsherds. [6] Hence abuse or
catachresis of words becomes necessary, while metaphor, also, which is the supreme ornament of oratory, applies words to things with which they have strictly no connexion. Consequently
propriety turns not on the actual term, but on the meaning of the term, and must be tested by the touchstone of the understanding, not of the ear.
[7] The second sense in which the word
propriety is used occurs when there are a number of things all called by the same name: in this case the original term from which the others are derived is styled the
proper term. For example, the word
vertex means a whirl of water, or of anything else that is whirled in a like manner: then, owing to the fashion of coiling the hair, it comes to mean the top of the head, while finally, from this sense it derives the meaning of the highest point of a mountain. All these things may correctly be called
vertices, but the
proper use of the term is the first. So, too,
solea and
tuidus
[8] are employed as names of fish, to mention no other cases.
4
The third kind of
propriety is found in the case where a thing which serves a number of purposes has a special name in some one particular context; for example, the proper term for a funeral
song is
naenia, and for the general's
tent augurale. Again, a term which is common to a number of things may be applied in a
proper or special sense to some one of them. Thus we use
urbs in the special sense of Rome,
venales in the special sense of newly-purchased slaves, and
Corinthia in the special sense of bronzes, although there are other cities besides Rome, and many other things which may be styled
venales besides slaves, and gold and silver are found at Corinth as well as bronze. But the use of such terms implies no special excellence in an orator.
[9] There is, however, a form of
propriety of speech which deserves the highest praise, that is to say, the employment of words with the maximum of significance, as, for instance, when Cato
5
said that
Caesar was thoroughly sober when he undertook the task of overthrowing the constitution,
or as Virgil
6
spoke of a
thin-drawn strain,
and Horace
7
of the
shrill pipe,
and
dread Hannibal.
[11]
Propriety is also made to include the appropriate use of words in metaphor, while at times the salient characteristic of an individual comes to be attached to him as a
proper name: thus Fabius was called
Cunctator,
the Delayer, on account of the most remarkable of his many military virtues. Some, perhaps, may think that words which mean more than they actually say deserve mention in connexion with clearness, since they assist the understanding. I, however, prefer to place
emphasis
10
among the ornaments of oratory, since it does not make a thing intelligible, but merely more intelligible. [12] Obscurity, on the other hand, results from the employment of obsolete words, as, for instance, if an author should search the records of the priests, the earliest treaties and the works of long-forgotten writers with the deliberate design of collecting words that no man living understands. For there are persons who seek to gain a reputation for erudition by such means as this, in order that they may be regarded as the sole depositories of certain forms of knowledge.
[13] Obscurity may also be produced by the use of words which are more familiar in certain districts than in others, or which are of a technical character, such as the wind called
Atabalus,
11
or a
sack-ship,
or
in malo cosanum. Such expressions should be avoided if we are pleading before a judge who is ignorant of their meaning, or, if used, should be explained, as may have to be done in the case of what are called homonyms. For example, the word
taurus may be unintelligible unless we make it clear whether we are speaking of a bull, or a mountain, or a constellation, or the name of a man, or the root of a tree.
12
[14] A greater source of obscurity is, however, to be found in the construction and combination of words, and the ways in which this may occur are still more numerous. Therefore, a sentence should never be so long that it is impossible to follow its drift, nor should its conclusion be unduly postponed by transposition or an excessive use of
hyperbaton.
13
Still worse is the result when the order of the words is confused as in the line
14
Again,
In the midmost sea
Rocks are there by Italians altars called.
[15] parenthesis, so often employed by orators and historians, and consisting in the insertion of one sentence in the midst of another, may seriously hinder the understanding of a passage, unless the insertion is short. For example, in the passage where Vergil
15
describes a colt, the words
are followed by a number of remarks of a totally different form, and it is only four lines later that the poet returns to the point and says,
Above all, ambiguity must be avoided,
Nor fears he empty noises,
Then, if tile sound of arms be heard afar,
How to stand still he knows not.
[16] and by ambiguity I mean not merely the kind of which I have already spoken, where the sense is uncertain, as in the clause
Chremetem audivi percussisse Demean,
16
but also that form of ambiguity which, although it does not actually result in obscuring the sense, falls into the same verbal error as if a man should say
visum a se hominem librum scribentem (that he had seen a man writing a book). For although it is clear that the book was being written by the man,
17
the sentence is badly put together, and its author has made it as ambiguous as he could.
[17] Again, some writers introduce a whole host of useless words; for, in their eagerness to avoid ordinary methods of expression, and allured by false ideals of beauty they wrap up everything in a multitude of words simply and solely because they are unwilling to make a direct and simple statement of the facts: and then they link up and involve one of those long-winded clauses with others like it, and extend their periods to a length beyond the compass of mortal breath.
[18] Some even expend an infinity of toil to acquire this vice, which, by the way, is nothing new: for I learn from the pages of Livy
18
that there was one, a teacher, who instructed his pupils to make all they said obscure, using the Greek word
σκότισον (
darken it.
) It was this same habit that gave rise to the famous words of praise,
So much the better: even I could not understand you.
[19] Others are consumed with a passion for brevity and omit words which are actually necessary to the sense, regarding it as a matter of complete indifference whether their meaning is intelligible to others, so long as they know what they mean themselves. For my own part, I regard as useless words which make such a demand upon the ingenuity of the hearer. Others, again, succeed in committing the same fault by a perverse misuse of figures.
[20] Worst of all are the phrases which the Greeks call
ἀδιανόητα, that is to say, expressions which, though their meaning is obvious enough on the surface, have a secret meaning, as for example in the phrase
cum ductus est caecus secundam viam stare, or where the man, who is supposed in the scholastic theme to have torn his own limbs with his teeth, is said to have
lain upon himself
19
[21] Such expressions are regarded as ingenious, daring and eloquent, simply because of their ambiguity, and quite a number of persons have become infected by the belief that a passage which requires a commentator must for that very reason be a masterpiece of elegance. Nay, there is even a class of hearer who find a special pleasure in such passages; for the fact that they can provide an answer to the riddle fills them with an ecstasy of self-congratulation, as if they had not merely heard the phrase, but invented it.
[22] For my own part, I regard clearness as the first essential of a good style: there must be propriety in our words, their order must be straightforward, the conclusion of the period must not be long postponed, there must be nothing lacking and nothing superfluous. Thus our language will be approved by the learned and clear to the uneducated. I am speaking solely of clearness in style, as I have already dealt with clearness in the presentation of facts in the rules I laid down for the
statement of the case.
[23] But the general method is the same in both. For if what we say is not less nor more than is required, and is clear and systematically arranged, the whole matter will be plain and obvious even to a not too attentive audience. For we must never forget that the attention of the judge is not always so keen that he will dispel obscurities without assistance, and bring the light of his intelligence to bear on the dark places of our speech. On the contrary, lie will have many other thoughts to distract him unless what we say is so clear that our words will thrust themselves into his mind even when he is not giving us his attention, just as the sunlight forces itself upon the eyes.
[24] Therefore our aim must be not to put him in a position to understand our argument, but to force him to understand it. Consequently we shall frequently repeat anything which we think the judge has failed to take in as he should. We shall say, for example,
I fear that this portion of our case has been somewhat obscurely stated: the fault is mine, and I will therefore re-state it in plainer and simpler language
; for the pretended admission of a fault on our part creates an excellent impression. Institutio Oratoria. Quintilian. Harold Edgeworth Butler (Translator). Cambridge, Mass.. 1920-1922.
Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.
Funding provided by Tufts University.