A History of Ambiguity
Anthony Ossa-Richardson
Princeton University Press (2019)
Ambiguity: “the subjective state of doubt as well as its objective correlative in the world”
In his instructive Introduction, Anthony Ossa-Richardson shares his thoughts about what he characterizes as the “two faces of the term ambiguity, which has always denoted subjective state of doubt as well as its objective correlative in the world, or in a text, a painting, sonata…Doubt and plurality, or plenty, are the twin poles of ambiguity as it is studied in this book. Our subject is the ambiguity not of Creation but of language, of texts, — the ways it has been posited, denied, conceptualised, and argued over since Aristotle.”
I first became aware of — and increasingly intrigued by — the objective correlative while in college and then in graduate school. I learned that it is a theory first set forth byT.S. Eliot T.S. Eliot in the essay “Hamlet and His Problems” and published in The Sacred Wood (1920). According to the theory, “The only way of expressing emotion in the form of art is by finding an “objective correlative”; in other words, a set of objects, a situation, a chain of events which shall be the formula of that particular emotion; such that when the external facts, which must terminate in sensory experience, are given, the emotion is immediately evoked. Since then, countless other literary critics have examined and then shared their own thoughts (and feelings!) about potential corrrelations between the given literary work and its cultural context.
Enter William Empson and his classic work, Seven Types of Ambiguity (1930) and (as Ossa-Richardson notes) its claim, “supported by a litany of ingenious close readings, that ambiguity is intrinsic to poetry and not a fault but a virtue.” I share his high regard for Empson’s book and agree with him that the seven types are intended as advancing stages of logical disorder but “they keep bleeding into each other,” compounding uncertainty while enriching diversity of interpretation.
These are among the dozens of other passages that caught my eye, also listed to suggest the thrust and flavor of Ossa-Richardson’s compelling insights:
o Introduction (Page 2-24)
o Minimisers and maximisers of ambiguity (7-18, 224-229, 248-255, and 357-358)
o Ambiguity in ancient language arts (29-43)
o Aristotle on ambiguity in philosophy (30-34)
o Ambiguity in law (73-96)
o Scriptural cLarity (134-137 and 144-145)
o Multiplicity and duality of (intentional) literal sense (162-181,165-166, and 286-301)
o Will v. power in ambiguity (183-184, and 196-197)
o Ambiguity in classical poetry (185-236)
o Elegance in ambiguity (191-201 and 279-280)
o Ambiguity in Horace (192-194, 196-198, 211-212, 218-219, and 223-235)
o Ambiguity in Homer (242-261)
o William Empson’s analysis of Alexander Pope’s so-called ambiguities that really weren’t (261-264)
o On the ambiguous style of Johann Georg Hamann (309-311)
o William Empson on Freudian sources of ambiguity (365-370, 373-375, 384-385, and 386-388)
o Unconscious ambiguity (368-370 and 374-380)
o William Empsonn on ambivalence (375-380 and 388-390)
o William Empson on ambiguity and time (375-380 and 388-390)
o Enantiosemy (381-384)
o Irony in Shakespeare (391-395)
Obviously, no brief commentary such as mine could do full justice to the quality and value of the insights — his and otghers’ — that Ossa-Richardson provides in abundance. However, I hope I have at least indicated why I hold him and his work in such high regard. A History of Ambiguity is a brilliant achievement, research-driven as its detailed chapter notes and extensive Bibliography (Pages 405-454) clearly indicate. Bravo!
After reading and then strategically re-reading this book, I again re-read T.S. Eliot’s Four Quartets. Here is my favorite passage, in Chapter 2, “Little Gidding”:
“We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all of our exploring
Will be to arrive at where we started
And know the place for the first time.”
I cite this passage because it offers an immediately accessible example of the power and complexity of ambiguity. With only minor modifications, this modern classic could have been — instead — written by Homer, Sophocles, Virgil, or Dante. Anthony Ossa-Richardson will help those who read his book with appropriate care to develop or strengthen, certain skills — indeed a mindset — that will prepare them well to recognize and embrace ambiguities whenever and wherever they may be encountered.