The human mind likes a good clear black-and-white contrast; when two
words so definitely promise one of these contrasts as _explicit_ and
_implicit_, and then dash our hopes by figuring in phrases where
contrast ceases to be visible--say in 'explicit support' and 'implicit
obedience', with _absolute_ or _complete_ or _full_ as a substitute
that might replace either or both--, we ask with some indignation
whether after all black is white, and perhaps decide that _implicit_
is a shifty word with which we will have no further dealings. It is
noteworthy in more than one respect.
First, it means for the most part the same as _implied_, and, as it is
certainly not so instantly intelligible to the average man, it might
have been expected to be so good as to die. That it has nevertheless
survived by the side of _implied_ is perhaps due to two causes: one is
that _explicit_ and _implicit_ make a neater antithesis than even
_expressed_ and _implied_ (we should write _all the conditions,
whether explicit or implicit_; but _all the implied conditions;
implied_ being much commoner than _implicit_ when the antithesis is
not given in full); and the other is that the adverb, whether of
_implicit_ or of _implied_, is more often wanted than the adjective,
and that _impliedly_ is felt to be a bad form; _implicitly_, preferred
to _impliedly_, helps to keep _implicit_ alive.
Secondly, there is the historical accident by which _implicit_, with
_faith, obedience, confidence_, and such words, has come to mean
absolute or full, whereas it originally meant undeveloped or potential
or in the germ. The starting-point of this usage is the ecclesiastical
phrase _implicit faith_, i.e. a person's acceptance of any article of
belief not on its own merits, but as a part of, as 'wrapped up in',
his general acceptance of the Church's authority; the steps from this
sense to unquestioning, and thence to complete or absolute or exact,
are easy; but not every one who says that implicit obedience is the
first duty of the soldier realizes that the obedience he is describing
is not properly an exact one, but one that is involved in acceptance
of the soldier's status.--[H.W.F.]
It seems to us (by virtue of this 'historical accident') that in such
a phrase as the _implied_ or _implicit conditions_ of a contract,
there is a recognized difference of meaning in the two words.
_Implied_ conditions, though unexpressed, need not be hidden, they are
rather such as any one who agreed to the main stipulation would
recognize as involved; and the word _implied_ might even carry the
plea that they were unspecified because openly apparent. On the other
hand _implicit_ conditions are rather such as are unsuspected and in a
manner hidden.--[ED.]