"vetuftate putridis dicam? Quae cum portant, "Deos ipfos fe geftare HUMERIS SUIS arbitran"tur." [Div. Inft. I. i. c. 21.] Virgil, in a fine flight of imagination, alludes to this venerable ceremony, comparing, as it were, the fhield of his Hero to the facred ANCILE; and in conformity to the practice in that facred proceffion reprefents his Hero in the pricftly office of Religion, Attollens HUMERO famamque et FATA Nepotum. This idea then of the facred fhield, the guard and glory of Rome, and on which, in this advanced fituation, depended the fame and fortune of his country, the poet, with extreme elegance and fublimity, transfers to the fhield which guarded their great progenitor, while he was laying the first foundations of the Roman Empire. But to return to the subject before us. What has been faid of the impropriety of double fenfes, holds of the conftru&tion of a single term in two fenfes, even though its authorized ufage may equally admit both. So that I cannot be of a mind with the learned critic's wife men [k]; who acknowledge an extreme elegance in this form, [k] At infpiciamus porrò, quid alii, quibus correctius fapit, de hoc loquendi modo CENSUERINT. Agnofcunt enim, etc. p. 299. when when the governing verb equally correfponds to the two fubftantives. But when it properly can be applied but to one of them, and with fome force and ftraining only, to the fecond, as commonly happens with the application of one verb to two fubftantives, it then degenerates, as Mr. Addison obferves, into a mere quibble, and is utterly incompatible with the graver forms of compofition. And for this we have the concurrent authority of the cordati themselves, who readily admit, duram admodum et καταχρησιμωτέραν fieri orati onem, fi verbum hoc ab alterutro abhorreat [1]. Without foftening matters, befides the former abfurdity of a fecond fenfe, we are now indebted to a forced and barbarous conftruction for any fecond fenfe at all. But furely this venerable bench of critics, to whom our cenfurer thinks fit to make his folemn appeal, were not aware of the imprudence of this conceffion. For why, if one may prefume to afk, is the latter use of this figure condemned, but for reasons, which fhew the maniFeft abfurdity of the thing, however countenanced by authorities? And is not this the cafe of the former? Or, is the tranfgreffion of the standing rules of good fenfe, in the judgment of these cenfors, a more pardonable crime in a writer, than of common usage or grammar ? T After all, fince he lays fo great ftrefs on his authorities, it may not be amifs to confider the proper force of them. The form of speaking under confideration has been cenfured as a trifling, affected witticifm. This cenfure he hopes entirely to elude by fhewing it was in use, more especially among two forts of perfons, the leaft likely to be infected with wrong tafte, the oldeft, that is to say, the simplest; and the most refined writers. In fhort, he thinks to ftop all mouths by alledging inftances from Homer and Virgil. But what if Homer and Virgil in the few examples of this kind to be met with in their writings have erred? And, which is more, what if that very fimplicity on the one hand, and refinement on the other, which he builds fo much upon, can be fhewn to be the natural and almost neceffary occafions of their falling into fuch errors? This, I am perfuaded, was the truth of the cafe. For, 1. In the fimpler ages of learning, when, as yet, compofition is not turned into an art, but every writer, especially of vehement and impetuous genius, is contented to put down his firft thoughts, and, for their expreffion, takes up with the most obvious words and phrases, that prefent themfelves to him, this improper conftruftion will not be unfrequent. For the writer, writer, who is not knowing enough to take offence at thefe niceties, having an immediate occafion to exprefs two things, and finding one word, which, in common ufage, at least with a little ftraining, extends to both, he looks no further, but, as fufpecting no fault, employs it without fcruple. And I am the more confirmed in this account, from obferving, that fometimes, where the governing verb cannot be made to bear this double fenfe, and yet the meaning of the writer is clear enough from the context, the proper word is altogether omitted. Of this kind are feveral of the modes of speaking, alledged by the writer as inftances of the double fenfe. As in that of Sophocles [m], where Electra, giving orders to Chryfothemis, about the difpofal of the libations, deftined for the tomb of her father, delivers herself thus, ΑΛΛ' ἢ ΠΝΟΑΙΣΙΝ, ἢ βαθυσκαφῆ ΚΟΝΕΙ The writer's firft intention was to look out for some fuch verb, as would equally correfpond to wvoals and xoves, but this not occurring, he sets down one, that only agrees to the last, and leaves the other to be understood or supplied by the reader; as it eafily might, the scope of the place neceffarily directing him to it. It cannot [m] 437. be supposed, that Sophocles defigned to fay, κρύψον πνοαῖς. There is no affinity of fenfe or found to lead him to fuch construction. Again; in that verfe of Homer [n], ΙΠΠΟΙ αἐρσίποδες, και ποικίλα ΤΕΥΧΕΙ ΕΚΕΙΤΟ, the poet never meant to fay ἵπποι ἔκεινο, but neglectingly left it thus, as trufting the nature of the thing would inftruct the reader to supply saray or fome fuch word expreffive of the posture required. Nay, writers of more exactness than these fimple Greek poets have occafionally overlooked fuch inaccuracies; as Cicero [], who, when more intent on his argument, than expreffion, lets fall this impropriety, Nec vero SUPRA TERRAM, fed etiam IN INTIMIS EJUS TENEBRIS plurimarum rerum LATET utilitas. 'Tis plain, the writer, conceiving extat, patet, or some fuch word, to be neceffarily fuggefted by the tenor of his fentence, never troubled himself to go back to infert it. Yet these are brought as examples of the double application of single words. The truth is, they are examples of indiligence in the writers, and as fuch, may fhew us, how easily they might fall, for the same reason, into the impropriety of double fenfes. In those of this clafs [x] Iliad, г. 327: [o] N. D. ii. 64. then |