Equivocation
Charles Buck Theological Dictionary [1]
The using a term or expression that has a double meaning. Equivocations are said to be expedients to save telling the truth, and yet without telling a falsity; but if an intention to deceive constitute the essence of a lie, which in general it does, I cannot conceive how it can be done without incurring guilt, as it is certainly an intention to deceive.
Webster's Dictionary [2]
(n.) The use of expressions susceptible of a double signification, with a purpose to mislead.
Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature [3]
"(aquae, voco, to use one word in different senses). 'How absolute the knave is! We must speak by the card, or equivocation will undo us' (Humlet, Acts 5:1-42, scene 1). In morals, to equivocate is to offend against the truth by using language of double meaning, in one sense, with the intention of its being understood in another or in either sense according to circumstances. The ancient oracles gave responses of ambiguous meaning. Aio, te, AEacide, Romanos vincere posse may mean either, 'I say that thou, O descendant of Jacus, canst conquer the Romans,' or 'I say that the Romans can conquer thee, O descendant of AEacus.' Latronem Petrum occidisse may mean 'a robber slew Peter,' or 'Peter slew a robber.' Edwardum occidere nolite timere borum est. The message penned by Adam Orleton, bishop of Hereford, and sent by queen Isabella to the jailers of her husband, Edward Ii. Being written without punctuation, the words might be written two ways: with a comma after timere, they would mean, 'Edward, to kill fear not, the deed is good;' but with it after nolite, the meaning would be, 'Edward kill not, to fear the deed is good.' Henry Garnet, who was tried for his participation in the Gunpowder Plot, thus expressed himself in a paper dated March 20, 1605-6, 'Concerning equivocation, this is my opinion: in moral affairs, and in the common intercourse of life, when the truth is asked among friends, it is not lawful to use equivocation, for that would cause great mischief in society wherefore, in such cases, there is no place for equivocation. But in cases where it becomes necessary to an individual for his defense, or for avoiding any injustice or loss, for obtaining any important advantage, without danger or mischief to any other person then equivocation is lawful' (Jardine, Gunpowder Plot, page 233). Dr. Johnson would not allow his servant to say he was not at home when he really was. 'A servant's strict regard for truth,' said he, 'must be weakened by such a practice. A philosopher may know that it is merely a form of denial, but few servants are such nice distinguishers. If I accustom a servant to tell a lie for me, have I not reason to apprehend that he will tell many lies for himself?' (Boswell, Letters, page 32.) There may be equivocation in sound as well as in sense. It is told that the queen of George Iii asked one of the dignitaries of the Church if ladies might knot on Sunday. His reply was, Ladies may not; which, in so far as sound goes, is equivocal." — Fleming, Vocabulary of Philosophy, s.v.
