Chapter II · SYNTAX

Case

There is not much opportunity in English for going wrong here, because we have shed most of our cases. The personal pronouns, and who and its compounds, are the only words that visibly retain three—called subjective, objective, possessive. In nouns the first two are indistinguishable, and are called the common case. One result of this simplicity is that, the sense of case being almost lost, the few mistakes that can be made are made often—some of them so often that they are now almost right by prescription.

1. In apposition.

A pronoun appended to a noun, and in the same relation to the rest of the sentence, should be in the same case. Disregard of this is a bad blunder.

But to behold her mother—she to whom she owed her being!—S. Ferrier.

2. The complement with am, are, is, &c., should be subjective.

I am she, she me, till death and beyond it.—Meredith.

Whom would you rather be?

To how many maimed and mourning millions is the first and sole angel visitant, him Easterns call Azrael.—C. Brontë.

That’s him.

In the last but one, him would no doubt have been defended by the writer, since the full form would be he whom, as an attraction to the vanished whom. But such attraction is not right; if he alone is felt to be uncomfortable, whom should not be omitted; or, in this exalted context, it might be he that.

On that’s him, see 4, below.

3. When a verb or preposition governs two pronouns united by and, &c., the second is apt to go wrong—a bad blunder. Between you and I is often heard in talk; and, in literature:

And now, my dear, let you and I say a few words about this unfortunate affair.—Trollope.

It is kept locked up in a marble casket, quite out of reach of you or I.—S. Ferrier.

She found everyone’s attention directed to Mary, and she herself entirely overlooked.—S. Ferrier.

4. The interrogative who is often used for whom, as, Who did you see? A distinction should here be made between conversation, written or spoken, and formal writing. Many educated people feel that in saying It is I, Whom do you mean? instead of It’s me, Who do you mean? they will be talking like a book, and they justifiably prefer geniality to grammar. But in print, unless it is dialogue, the correct forms are advisable.

5. Even with words that have no visible distinction between subjective and objective case, it is possible to go wrong; for the case can always be inferred, though not seen. Consequently a word should never be so placed that it must be taken twice, once as subject and once as object. This is so common a blunder that it will be well to give a good number of examples. It occurs especially with the relative, from its early position in the sentence; but, as the first two examples show, it may result from the exceptional placing of other words also. The mere repetition of the relative, or insertion of it or other pronoun, generally mends the sentence; in the first example, change should only be to only to be.

The occupation of the mouths of the Yalu, however, his Majesty considered undesirable, and should only be carried out in the last resort.—Times.

This the strong sense of Lady Maclaughlan had long perceived, and was the principal reason of her selecting so weak a woman as her companion.—S. Ferrier.

Qualities which it would cost me a great deal to acquire, and would lead to nothing.—Morley.

A recorded saying of our Lord which some higher critics of the New Testament regard as of doubtful authenticity, and is certainly of doubtful interpretation.

A weakness which some would miscall gratitude, and is oftentimes the corrupter of a heart not ignoble.—Richardson.

Analogous to these are the next three examples, which will require separate comment:

Knowledge to the certainty of which no authority could add, or take away, one jot or tittle.—Huxley.

To is applicable to add, not to take away. The full form is given by substituting for or ‘and from the certainty of which no authority could’. This is clearly too cumbrous. Inserting or from after to is the simplest correction; but the result is rather formal. Better, perhaps, ‘the certainty of which could not be increased or diminished one jot by any authority’.

From his conversation I should have pronounced him to be fitted to excel in whatever walk of ambition he had chosen to exert his abilities.

A second in is required. This common slovenliness results from the modern superstition against putting a preposition at the end. The particular sentence may, however, be mended otherwise than by inserting in, if excel is made absolute by a comma placed after it. Even then, the in would perhaps be better at the end of the clause than at the beginning.

Lastly may be mentioned a principle upon which Clausewitz insisted with all his strength, and could never sufficiently impress upon his Royal scholar.—Times.

The italicized upon (we have nothing to do with the other upon) is right with insist, but wrong, though it must necessarily be supplied again, with impress. It is the result of the same superstition. Mend either by writing upon after insisted instead of before which, or by inserting which he after and.

6. After as and than.

These are properly conjunctions and ‘take the same case after them as before’. But those words must be rightly understood. (a), I love you more than him, means something different from (b), I love you more than he. It must be borne in mind that the ‘case before’ is that of the word that is compared with the ‘case after’, and not necessarily that of the word actually next before in position. In (a) you is compared with him: in (b) I (not you) is compared with he. The correct usage is therefore important, and the tendency illustrated in the following examples to make than and as prepositions should be resisted—though no ambiguity can actually result here.

When such as her die.—Swift.

But there, I think, Lindore would be more eloquent than me.—S. Ferrier.

It must further be noticed that both as and than are conjunctions of the sort that can either, like and, &c., merely join coordinates, or, like when, &c., attach a subordinate clause to what it depends on. This double power sometimes affects case.

It is to him and such men as he that we owe the change.—Huxley.

This example is defensible, as being here a subordinating conjunction, and as he being equivalent to as he is. But it is distinctly felt to need defence, which as him would not; as would be a coordinating conjunction, and simply join the pronoun him to the noun men. So, with than:

Such as have bound me, as well as others much better than me, by an inviolable attachment to him from that time forward.—Burke.

On the other hand, we could not say indifferently, I am as good as he, and I am as good as him; the latter would imply that as was a preposition, which it is not. And it is not always possible to choose between the coordinating and the subordinating use. In the next example only the coordinating will do, no verb being capable of standing after he; but the author has not observed this.

I beheld a man in the dress of a postillion, whom I instantly recognized as he to whom I had rendered assistance.—Borrow.

A difficult question, however, arises with relatives after than. In the next two examples whom is as manifestly wrong as who is manifestly intolerable:

Dr. Dillon, than whom no Englishman has a profounder acquaintance with....—Times.

It was a pleasure to hear Canon Liddon, than whom, in his day, there was no finer preacher.

The only correct solution is to recast the sentences. For instance, ... whose acquaintance with ... is unrivalled among Englishmen; and ... unsurpassed in his day as a preacher. But perhaps the convenience of than whom is so great that to rule it out amounts to saying that man is made for grammar and not grammar for man.

7. Compound possessives.

This is strictly the proper place for drawing attention to a question that has some importance because it bears on the very common construction discussed at some length in the gerund section. This is the question whether, and to what extent, compound possessives may be recognized. Some people say some one else’s, others say some one’s else. Our own opinion is that the latter is uncalled for and pedantic. Of the three alternatives, Smith the baker’s wife, Smith’s wife the baker, the wife of Smith the baker, the last is unmitigated Ollendorff, the second thrusts its ambiguity upon us and provokes an involuntary smile, and the first alone is felt to be natural. It must be confessed, however, that it is generally avoided in print, while the form that we have ventured to call pedantic is not uncommon. In the first of the examples that follow, we should be inclined to change to Nanny the maid-of-all-work’s, and in the second to the day of Frea, goddess of, &c.

Another mind that was being wrought up to a climax was Nanny’s, the maid-of-all-work, who had a warm heart.—Eliot.

Friday is Frea’s-day, the goddess of peace and joy and fruitfulness.—J. R. Green.

Number

Very little comment will be needed; we have only to convince readers that mistakes are common, and caution therefore necessary.

1. The copula should always agree with the subject, not with the complement. These are wrong:

The pages which describe how the 34th Osaka Regiment wiped out the tradition that had survived since the Saigo rebellion is a typical piece of description.—Times.

A boy dressed up as a girl and a girl dressed up as a girl is, to the eye at least, the same thing.—Times.

People do not believe now as they did, but the moral inconsistencies of our contemporaries is no proof thereof.—Daily Telegraph.

It must be remembered that in questions the subject often comes after the verb and the complement before it; but the same rule must be kept. E. g., if the last example were put as a question instead of as a negative statement, ‘What proof is the inconsistencies?’ would be wrong, and ‘What proof are &c.?’ right.

Some sentences in which the subject contains only, a superlative, &c., have the peculiarity that subject and complement may almost be considered to have changed places; and this defence would probably be put in for the next three examples; but, whether actually wrong or not, they are unpleasant. The noun that stands before the verb should be regarded as the subject, and the verb be adapted to it.

The only thing Siamese about the Consul, except the hatchment and the flag, were his servants.—Sladen.

The only difficulty in Finnish are the changes undergone by the stem.—Sweet.

The most pompous monument of Egyptian greatness, and one of the most bulky works of manual industry, are the pyramids.—Johnson.

The next example is a curious problem; the subject to were is in sense plural, but in grammar singular (finding, verbal noun):

Finding Miss Vernon in a place so solitary, engaged in a journey so dangerous, and under the protection of one gentleman only, were circumstances to excite every feeling of jealousy.—Scott.

2. Mistakes in the number of verbs are extremely common when a singular noun intervenes between a plural subject (or a plural noun between a singular subject) and its verb. It is worth while to illustrate the point abundantly; for it appears that real doubt can exist on the subject:—‘“No one but schoolmasters and schoolboys knows” is exceedingly poor English, if it is not absolutely bad grammar’ (from a review of this book, 1st ed.).

And do we wonder, when the foundation of politics are in the letter only, that many evils should arise?—Jowett.

There is much in these ceremonial accretions and teachings of the Church which tend to confuse and distract, and which hinder us....—Daily Telegraph.

This sentence, strictly taken as it stands, would mean something that the writer by no means intends it to, viz., ‘Though the ceremonies are confusing, there is a great deal in them’.

An immense amount of confusion and indifference prevail in these days.—Daily Telegraph.

They produced various medicaments, the lethal power of which were extolled at large.—Times.

The partition which the two ministers made of the powers of government were singularly happy.—Macaulay.

One at least of the qualities which fit it for training ordinary men unfit it for training an extraordinary man.—Bagehot.

I failed to pass in the small amount of classics which are still held to be necessary.—Times.

The Tibetans have engaged to exclude from their country those dangerous influences whose appearance were the chief cause of our action.—Times.

Sundry other reputable persons, I know not whom, whose joint virtue still keep the law in good odour.—Emerson.

The practical results of the recognition of this truth is as follows.—W. H. Mallock.

The Ordination services of the English Church states this to be a truth.—Daily Telegraph.

All special rights of voting in the election of members was abolished.—J. R. Green.

The separate powers of this great officer of State, who had originally acted only as President of the Council when discharging its judicial functions, seems to have been thoroughly established under Edward I.—J. R. Green.

3. They, them, their, theirs, are often used in referring back to singular pronominals (as each, one, anybody, everybody), or to singular nouns or phrases (as a parent, neither Jack nor Jill), of which the doubtful or double gender causes awkwardness. It is a real deficiency in English that we have no pronoun, like the French soi, son, to stand for him-or-her, his-or-her (for he-or-she French is no better off than English). Our view, though we admit it to be disputable, is clear—that they, their, &c., should never be resorted to, as in the examples presently to be given they are. With a view to avoiding them, it should be observed that (a) the possessive of one (indefinite pronoun) is one’s, and that of one (numeral pronoun) is either his, or her, or its (One does not forget one’s own name: I saw one of them drop his cigar, her muff, or its leaves); (b) he, his, him, may generally be allowed to stand for the common gender; the particular aversion shown to them by Miss Ferrier in the examples may be referred to her sex; and, ungallant as it may seem, we shall probably persist in refusing women their due here as stubbornly as Englishmen continue to offend the Scots by saying England instead of Britain. (c) Sentences may however easily be constructed (Neither John nor Mary knew his own mind) in which his is undeniably awkward. The solution is then what we so often recommend, to do a little exercise in paraphrase (John and Mary were alike irresolute, for instance). (d) Where legal precision is really necessary, he or she may be written in full. Corrections according to these rules will be appended in brackets to the examples.

Anybody else who have only themselves in view.—Richardson. (has ... himself)

Ce n’est que le premier pas qui coûte, in novel-writing as in carrying one’s head in their hand.—S. Ferrier. (one’s ... one’s)

The feelings of the parent upon committing the cherished object of their cares and affections to the stormy sea of life.—S. Ferrier. (his)

But he never allowed one to feel their own deficiencies, for he never appeared to be aware of them himself.—S. Ferrier. (one’s)

A difference of opinion which leaves each free to act according to their own feelings.—S. Ferrier. (his)

Suppose each of us try our hands at it.—S. Ferrier. (tries his hand; or, if all of us are women, tries her hand)

Everybody is discontented with their lot in life.—Beaconsfield. (his)

4. Other mistakes involving number made with such pronominals, or with nouns collective, personified, or abstract.

No man can read Scott without being more of a public man, whereas the ordinary novel tends to make its readers rather less of one than before.—Hutton.

And so each of his portraits are not only a ‘piece of history’, but....—Stevenson.

Le Roman d’un Spahi, Azidayé and Rarahu each contains the history of a love affair.—H. James.

He manages to interest us in the men, who each in turn wishes to engineer Richard Baldock’s future.—Westminster Gazette.

When each is appended in apposition to a plural subject, it should stand after the verb, or auxiliary, which should be plural; read here, contain each, wish each in turn (or, each of whom wishes in turn).

As the leading maritime nation in the world and dependent wholly on the supremacy of our fleet to maintain this position, everyone is virtually bound to accord some measure of aid to an association whose time and talents are devoted to ensuring this important object.—Times.

Every one is indeed a host in himself, if he is the leading maritime nation.

It is not in Japan’s interests to allow negotiations to drag on once their armies are ready to deliver the final blow.—Times.

The personification of Japan must be kept up by her.

Many of my notes, I am greatly afraid, will be thought a superfluity.—E. V. Lucas (quoted in Times review).

My notes may be a superfluity; many of my notes may be superfluous, or superfluities; or many a note of mine may be a superfluity; but it will hardly pass as it is.

5. Though nouns of multitude may be freely used with either a singular or a plural verb, or be referred to by pronouns of singular or plural meaning, they should not have both (except for special reasons and upon deliberation) in the same sentence; and words that will rank in one context as nouns of multitude may be very awkward if so used in another.

The public is naturally much impressed by this evidence, and in considering it do not make the necessary allowances.—Times.

The Times Brussels correspondent ... tells us that the committee adds these words to their report.—Westminster Gazette.

The Grand Opera Syndicate has also made an important addition to their German tenors.—Westminster Gazette.

The only political party who could take office was that which ... had consistently opposed the American war.—Bagehot.

As the race of man, after centuries of civilization, still keeps some traits of their barbarian fathers.—Stevenson.

The battleship Kniaz Potemkin, of which the crew is said to have mutinied and murdered their officers.—Times.

6. Neither, either, as pronouns, should always take a singular verb—a much neglected rule. So also every.

The conception is faulty for two reasons, neither of which are noticed by Plato.—Jowett.

... neither of which are very amiable motives for religious gratitude.—Thackeray.

He asked the gardener whether either of the ladies were at home.—Trollope.

Were, however, may be meant for the subjunctive, when it would be a fault of style, not of grammar.

I think almost every one of the Judges of the High Court are represented here.—Lord Halsbury.

Every Warwick institution, from the corporation to the schools and the almshouses, have joined hands in patriotic fellow-working.—Speaker.

7. For rhetorical reasons, a verb often precedes its subject; but enthusiasm, even if appropriate, should not be allowed to override the concords.

And of this emotion was born all the gods of antiquity.—Daily Telegraph.

But unfortunately there seems to be spread abroad certain misconceptions.—Times.

But with these suggestions are joined some very good exposition of principles which should underlie education generally.—Spectator.

Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman has received a resolution, to which is appended the names of eight Liberal members and candidates for East London....—Times.

Comparatives and Superlatives

The chief point that requires mention is ill treatment of the more. In this phrase the is not the article, but an adverb, either relative or demonstrative. In the more the merrier it is first relative and then demonstrative: by-how-much we are more, by-so-much we shall be merrier. When the relative the is used, it should always be answered regularly by, or itself answer, the demonstrative the. Attempts to vary the formula are generally unhappy; for instance,

He was leaving his English business in the hands of Bilton, who seemed to him, the more he knew him, extraordinarily efficient.—E. F. Benson.

This should run, perhaps: whose efficiency impressed him the more, the more he knew him—though it must be confessed that the double form is nearly always uncomfortable if it has not the elbowroom of a whole sentence to itself. That, however, is rather a question of style than of syntax; and other examples will accordingly be found in the section of the Chapter Airs and Graces concerned with originality.

The farther we advance into it, we see confusion more and more unfold itself into order.—Carlyle.

Most readers will feel that this is an uncomfortable compromise between The farther we advance the more do we see and As we advance we see confusion more and more unfold itself. Similarly,

She had reflection enough to foresee, that the longer she countenanced his passion, her own heart would be more and more irretrievably engaged.—Smollett.

But it is when the demonstrative is used alone with no corresponding relative clause—a use in itself quite legitimate—that real blunders occur. It seems sometimes to be thought that the more is merely a more imposing form of more, and is therefore better suited for a dignified or ambitious style; but it has in fact a perfectly definite meaning, or rather two; and there need never be any doubt whether more or the more is right. One of the meanings is a slight extension of the other. (1) The correlative meaning by so much may be kept, though the relative clause, instead of formally corresponding and containing the (meaning by how much) and a comparative, takes some possibly quite different shape. But it must still be clear from the context what the relative clause might be. Thus, ‘We shall be a huge crowd’.—‘Well, we shall be the merrier’. Or, ‘If he raises his demands, I grant them the more willingly’, i. e., The more he asks, the more willingly I give. This instance leads to the other possible meaning, which is wider. (2) The original meaning of the demonstrative the is simply by that; this in the complete double form, and often elsewhere, has the interpretation, limited to quantity, of by so much, or in that proportion; but it may also mean on that account, when the relative clause is not present. Again, however, the context must answer plainly in some form the question On what account? Thus, He has done me many good turns; but I do not like him any the better; i. e., any better on that account; i. e., on account of the good turns.

The function of the, then, is to tell us that there is, just before or after, an answer to one of the questions, More by what amount? More on what account? If there is no such answer, we may be sure that the comparative has no right to its the. We start with a sentence that is entitled to its the, but otherwise unidiomatic.

We are not a whit the less depressed in spirits at the sight of all this unrelieved misery on the stage by the reminder that Euripides was moved to depict it by certain occurrences in his own contemporary Athens.—Times.

The less is less on that account, viz., that we are reminded. But the preposition required when the cause is given in this construction by a noun is for, not by. Read for the reminder. The type is shown in None the better for seeing you. Our sentence is in fact a mixture between Our depression is not lessened by the reminder, and We are not the less depressed for the reminder; and the confusion is the worse that depressed by happens to be a common phrase.

The suggestion, as regarded Mr. Sowerby, was certainly true, and was not the less so as regarded some of Mr. Sowerby’s friends.—Trollope.

The tells us that we can by looking about us find an answer either to Not less true by what amount? or to Not less true on what account? There is no answer to the first except Not less true about the friends in proportion as it was truer about Mr. Sowerby; and none to the second except Not less true about the friends because it was true about Mr. Sowerby. Both are meaningless, and the the is superfluous and wrong.

Yet as his criticism is more valuable than that of other men, so it is the more rarely met with.—Spectator.

This is such an odd tangle of the two formulae as ... so, the more ... the more, that the reader is tempted to cut the knot and imagine what is hardly possible, that the is meant for the ordinary article, agreeing with kind of criticism understood between the and more. Otherwise it must be cured either by omitting the, or by writing The more valuable his criticism, the more rarely is it met with. If the latter is done, than that of other men will have to go. Which suggests the further observation that the with a comparative is almost always wrong when a than-clause is appended. This is because in the full double clause there is necessarily not a fixed standard of comparison, but a sliding scale. The following example, not complicated by any the, will make the point clear:

My eyes are more and more averse to light than ever.—S. Ferrier.

You can be more averse than ever, or more and more averse, but not more and more averse than ever. Ever can only mean the single point of time in the past, whichever it was, at which you were most averse. But to be more and more averse is to be more averse at each stage than at each previous stage. Just such a sliding scale is essential with the more ... the more. And perhaps it becomes so closely associated with the phrase that the expression of a fixed standard of comparison, such as is inevitably set up by a than-clause, is felt to be impossible even when the demonstrative the stands alone. In the next two examples, answers to the question More on what account? can be found, though they are so far disguised that the sentences would be uncomfortable, even if what makes them impossible were absent. That is the addition of the than-clause in each.

But neither is that way open; nor is it any the more open in the case of Canada than Australia.—F. Greenwood.

The the might pass if than Australia were omitted, and there would be no objection to it if we read further (for in the case) if we take the case, and better still, placed that clause first in the sentence: Nor, if we take the case of Canada, is the way any the more open. The then means on that account, viz., because we have substituted Canada.

I would humbly protest against setting up any standard of Christianity by the regularity of people’s attendance at church or chapel. I am certain personally that I have a far greater realization of the goodness of God to all creation; I am certain that I can the more acknowledge His unbounded love for all He has made, and our entire dependence on Him, than I could twenty years ago, when I attended church ten times where I now go once.—Daily Telegraph.

In this, the answer to More on what account? is possibly implied in the last clause; it would perhaps be, if clearly put, Because I go to church seldomer. The right form would be, I can the more acknowledge ... for going (or that I go) to church only once where twenty years ago I went ten times. Unless the than-clause is got rid of, we ought to have more without the.

This question of the is important for lucidity, is rather difficult, and has therefore had to be treated at length. The other points that call for mention are quite simple; they are illogicalities licensed by custom, but perhaps better avoided. Avoidance, however, that proclaims itself is not desirable; to set readers asking ‘Who are you, pray, that the things everybody says are not good enough for you?’ is bad policy; ‘in vitium ducit culpae fuga si caret arte.’ But if a way round presents itself that does not at once suggest an assumption of superiority, so much the better.

1. More than I can help.

Without thinking of the corresponding phrase in his native language more than he can help.—H. Sweet.

We don’t haul guns through traffic more than we can help.—Kipling.

These really mean, of course, more than he (we) cannot help. To say that, however, is by this time impossible. More than he need, if (when) he can help it, too much, unnecessarily, and other substitutes, will sometimes do.

2. Most of any (singular).

A political despotism, the most unbounded, both in power and principle, of any tyranny that ever existed so long.—Galt.

She has the most comfortable repository of stupid friends to have recourse to of anybody I ever knew.—S. Ferrier.

And they had the readiest ear for a bold, honourable sentiment, of any class of men the world ever produced.—Stevenson.

Latin at any rate should be an essential ingredient in culture as the best instrument of any language for clear and accurate expression of thought.—Times.

The first chapter, which from the lessons it enforces is perhaps the most valuable of any in the present volume....—Sir G. T. Goldie.

Disraeli said that he had ‘the largest parliamentary knowledge of any man he had met’.—Bryce.

Though this is extremely common, as the examples are enough to show, there is seldom any objection to saying either most of all or more than any.

3. Most with words that do not admit of degrees.

Unique has been separately dealt with in the chapter on Vocabulary. Ideal is another word of the same sort; an ideal solution is one that could not possibly be improved upon, and most is nonsense with it; an ideal and most obvious should be read in the example:

That the transformation of the Regular Army into the general service Army and of the Militia into the home service Army is a most ideal and obvious solution admits, I think, of no contradiction.—Times.

Relatives

a. Defining and non-defining relative clauses.

For the purposes of b. and c. below, all relative clauses are divided into defining and non-defining. The exact sense in which we use these terms is illustrated by the following groups, of which (i) contains defining clauses, (ii) non-defining.

(i) The man who called yesterday left no address.

Mr. Lovelace has seen divers apartments at Windsor: but not one, he says, that he thought fit for me.—Richardson.

He secured ... her sincere regard, by the feelings which he manifested.—Thackeray.

The Jones who dines with us to-night is not the Jones who was at school with you.

The best novel that Trollope ever wrote was....

Any man that knows three words of Greek could settle that point.

(ii) At the first meeting, which was held yesterday, the chair....

Deputies must be elected by the Zemstvos, which must be extended and popularized, but not on the basis of....—Times.

The Emperor William, who was present ..., listened to a loyal address.—Times.

The statue of the Emperor Frederick, which is the work of the sculptor Professor Uphnes, represents the Monarch on horseback.—Times.

Jones, who should know something of the matter, thinks differently.

The function of a defining relative clause is to limit the application of the antecedent; where that is already precise, a defining clause is not wanted. The limitation can be effected in more than one way, according to the nature of the antecedent. As a rule, the antecedent gives us a class to select from, the defining clause enables us to make the selection. Thus in our first example the antecedent leaves us to select from the general class of ‘men’, the defining clause fixes the particular man (presumably the only man, or the only man that would occur in the connexion) ‘who called yesterday’. Sometimes, however, the functions of the two are reversed. When we have an antecedent with a superlative, or other word of exclusive or comprehensive meaning, such as ‘all’, ‘only’, ‘any’, we know already how to make our selection, and only wait for the relative clause to tell us from what class to make it. We know that we are to choose ‘the best novel’: the relative clause limits us to the works of Trollope. We are to choose ‘any man’ we like, provided (says our relative clause) that he ‘knows three words of Greek’. In either case, the work of definition is done by the exclusion (implied in the relative clause) of persons or things that the antecedent by itself might be taken to include.

The point to notice is that, whichever way the defining clause does its work, it is essential to and inseparable from its antecedent. If for any reason we wish to get rid of it, we can only do so by embodying its contents in the antecedent: ‘The man in Paris with whom I correspond’ must become ‘My Paris correspondent’. To remove the clause altogether is to leave the antecedent with either no meaning or a wrong one. Even in such extreme cases as ‘the wisest man that ever lived’, ‘the meanest flower that blows’, where the defining clause may seem otiose and therefore detachable, we might claim that future wise men, and past and future flowers, are excluded; but we shall better realize the writer’s intention if we admit that these clauses are only a pretence of limitation designed to exclude the reality; it is as if the writers, invited to set limits to their statements, had referred us respectively to Time and Space.

This fact, that the removal of a defining clause destroys the meaning of the antecedent, supplies an infallible test for distinguishing between the defining and the non-defining clause: the latter can always, the former never, be detached without disturbing the truth of the main predication. A non-defining clause gives independent comment, description, explanation, anything but limitation of the antecedent; it can always be rewritten either as a parenthesis or as a separate sentence, and this is true, however essential the clause may be to the point of the main statement. ‘Jones’, in our last example above, is quoted chiefly as one ‘who should know something of the matter’; but this need not prevent us from writing: ‘Jones thinks differently; and he should know something of the matter’.

To find, then, whether a clause defines or does not define, remove it, and see whether the statement of which it formed a part is unaltered: if not, the clause defines. This test can be applied without difficulty to all the examples given above. It is true that we sometimes get ambiguous cases: after removing the relative clause, we cannot always say whether the sense has been altered or not. That means, however, not that our test has failed, but that the clause is actually capable of performing either function, and that the main sentence can bear two distinct meanings, between which even context may not enable us to decide. The point is illustrated, in different degrees, by the following examples:

Mr. H. Lewis then brought forward an amendment, which had been put down by Mr. Trevelyan and which provided for an extension of the process of income-tax graduation.—Times.

This was held to portend developments that somehow or other have not followed.—Times.

The former of these is quite ambiguous. The bringing forward of an amendment (no matter what or whose) may be all that the writer meant to tell us of in the first instance; the relative clauses are then non-defining clauses of description. On the other hand, both clauses may quite well be meant to define; and it is even possible that the second is meant to define, and the first not, though the coordination is then of a kind that we shall show under c. to be improper. Similarly, in the second sentence, ‘to portend developments’ may possibly be complete in itself; the whole might then be paraphrased thus: ‘It was thought that the matter would not stop there: but it has’. More probably the clause is meant to define: ‘It was held to portend what have since proved to be unrealized developments’. This view is confirmed, as we shall see, both by the use of ‘that’ (not ‘which’) and by the absence of a comma before it.

Punctuation is a test that would not always be applicable even if all writers could be assumed to punctuate correctly; but it is often a guide to the writer’s intention. For (1) a non-defining clause should always be separated from the antecedent by a stop; (2) a defining clause should never be so separated unless it is either preceded by a parenthesis indicated by stops, or coordinated with a former defining clause or with adjectives belonging to the antecedent; as in the following examples:

The only circumstance, in fact, that could justify such a course....

It is he only who does this, who follows them into all their force and matchless grace, that does or can feel their full value.—Hazlitt.

Perfect types, that satisfy all these requirements, are not to be looked for.

It will occur to the reader that our last two examples are strictly speaking exceptions to the rule of defining clauses, since they tell us only what is already implied, and could therefore be removed without impairing the sense. That is true to some extent of many parallel defining clauses: they are admissible, however, if, without actually giving any limitation themselves, they make more clear a limitation already given or implied; if, in fact, they are offered as alternative versions or as reminders. Our next example is of a defining clause of the same kind:

This estimate which he gives, is the great groundwork of his plan for the national redemption.—Burke.

The limitation given by ‘this’ is repeated in another form by the relative clause. ‘This estimate, the one he gives, is....’

The reader should bear in mind that the distinction between the two kinds of relative is based entirely on the closeness of their relation to the antecedent. The information given by a defining clause must be taken at once, with the antecedent, or both are useless: that given by a non-defining clause will keep indefinitely, the clause being complete in sense without the antecedent, and the antecedent without the clause. This is the only safe test. To ask, for instance, whether the clause conveys comment, explanation, or the like, is not a sufficient test unless the question is rightly understood; for, although we have said that a non-defining clause conveys comment and the like, as opposed to definition of the antecedent, it does not follow that a defining clause may not (while defining its own antecedent) contribute towards comment; on the contrary, it is often open to a writer to throw his comment into such a form as will include a defining clause. It may even appear from a comparison of the two sentences below that this is the origin of the non-defining clause, (2) being an abbreviation of (1):

1. Lewis, a man to whom hard work never came amiss, sifted the question thoroughly.

2. Lewis, to whom hard work never came amiss, sifted the question....

In (1), a comment is introduced by ‘a man’ in apposition with Lewis; ‘a man’ is antecedent to a defining relative clause; separate them, and the antecedent is meaningless. But next remove the connecting words ‘a man’, and the relative changes at once its antecedent and its nature: the antecedent is ‘Lewis’; the relative is non-defining; and the clause is a comment, and does not merely contribute to one.

b. ‘That’ and ‘who’ or ‘which’.

‘That’ is evidently regarded by many writers as nothing more than an ornamental variation for ‘who’ and ‘which’, to be used, not indeed immoderately, but quite without discrimination. The opinion is excusable; it is not easy to draw any distinction that is at all consistently supported by usage. There was formerly a tendency to use ‘that’ for everything: the tendency now is to use ‘who’ and ‘which’ for everything. ‘That’, from disuse, has begun to acquire an archaic flavour, which with some authors is a recommendation. De Quincey, for one, must certainly have held that in exalted prose ‘that’, in all connexions, was the more dignified relative; his higher flights abound in curious uses of the word, some instances of which are quoted below.

This confusion is to be regretted; for although no distinction can be authoritatively drawn between the two relatives, an obvious one presents itself. The few limitations on ‘that’ and ‘who’ about which every one is agreed all point to ‘that’ as the defining relative, ‘who’ or ‘which’ as the non-defining. We cannot say ‘My father, that left Berlin last night, will shortly arrive’, and an examination of instances would show that we can never use ‘that’ where the clause is unmistakably non-defining. On the other hand, we cannot say ‘All which I can do is useless’; this time, it is true, the generalization will not hold; ‘which’ can, and sometimes must, be used, and ‘who’ commonly is used, in defining clauses. But that is explained partly by the obvious inconvenience sometimes attending the use of ‘that’, and partly by the general tendency to exclude it from regular use, which has already resulted in making it seem archaic when used of persons, except in certain formulae.

The rules given below are a modification of this principle, that ‘that’ is the defining, ‘who’ or ‘which’ the non-defining relative; the reason for each modification is given in its place. We must here remind the reader of the distinction drawn in a. between defining and non-defining clauses: a defining clause limits the application of the antecedent, enabling us to select from the whole class to which the antecedent is applicable the particular individual or individuals meant.

1. ‘That’ should never be used to introduce a non-defining clause; it is therefore improperly used in all the following examples:

But by her side was kneeling her better angel, that hid his face with wings: that wept and pleaded for her: that prayed when she could not: that fought with Heaven by tears for her deliverance.—De Quincey.

Rendering thanks to God in the highest—that, having hid his face through one generation behind thick clouds of war, once again was ascending.—De Quincey.

And with my own little stock of money besides, that Mrs. Hoggarty’s card-parties had lessened by a good five-and-twenty shillings, I calculated....—Thackeray.

How to keep the proper balance between these two testy old wranglers, that rarely pull the right way together, is as much....—Meredith.

Nataly promised amendment, with a steely smile, that his lips mimicked fondly.—Meredith.

It is opposed to our Constitution, that only allows the Crown to remove a Norwegian Civil servant.—Nansen.

I cannot but feel that in my person and over my head you desire to pay an unexampled honour to the great country that I represent, to its Bench and Bar, that daily share your labours and keep step with your progress.—Choate.

‘That I represent’ is right: ‘that daily share’ is wrong.

As to dictionaries of the present day, that swell every few years by the thousand items, the presence of a word in one of them shows merely....—R. G. White.

The sandy strip along the coast is fed only by a few scanty streams, that furnish a remarkable contrast to the vast volumes of water which roll down the Eastern sides.—Prescott.

‘That’ and ‘which’ should change places.

The social and economic sciences, that now specially interest me, have no considerable place in such a reform.—Times.

If this is a defining clause, excluding ‘the social and economic sciences that’ do not interest the writer, the comma after ‘sciences’ should be removed.

2. ‘Who’ or ‘which’ should not be used in defining clauses except when custom, euphony, or convenience is decidedly against the use of ‘that’. The principal exceptions will be noted below; but we shall first give instances in which ‘that’ is rightly used, and others in which it might have been used with advantage.

In those highly impressionable years that lie between six and ten....—Spectator.

The obstacles that hedge in children from Nature....—Spectator.

The whole producing an effect that is not without a certain poetry.—Times.

He will do anything that he deems convenient.—Borrow.

The well-staffed and well-equipped ‘High Schools’ that are now at work ... had not yet sprung into being.—Times.

Then, Sir, you keep up revenue laws which are mischievous, in order to preserve trade laws that are useless.—Burke.

‘That’ should have been used in both clauses.

The struggle that lay before him.—J. R. Green.

There goes another sort of animal that is differentiating from my species....—H. G. Wells.

There are other powers, too, that could perform this grateful but onerous duty.—Times.

In the following examples, ‘that’ is to be preferred to ‘which’; especially with antecedent ‘it’, and after a superlative or other word of exclusive or comprehensive meaning, such as ‘all’, ‘only’, ‘any’.

The opportunities which London has given them.—Times.

The principles which underlay the agreement.—Times.

One cause which surely contributes to this effect has its root in early childhood.—Spectator.

A meeting which was held yesterday, which consisted in the main of a bitter personal attack.—Rosebery.

‘Which consisted’ is right: but we should have ‘that was held’; the clause defines.

The first thing which the person who desires to be amiable must determine to do is....—Spectator.

The most abominable din and confusion which it is possible for a reasonable person to conceive.—Poe.

Reverential objections, composed of all which his unstained family could protest.—Meredith.

He required all the solace which he could derive from literary success.—Macaulay.

All the evidence which we have ever seen tends to prove....—Macaulay.

A battle more bloody than any which Europe saw in the long interval between Malplaquet and Eylau.—Macaulay.

The only other biography which counts for much is....—Times.

The French Government are anxious to avoid anything which might be regarded as a breach of neutrality.—Times.

It was the ecclesiastical synods which by their example led the way to our national parliaments.—J. R. Green.

It is the little threads of which the inner substance of the nerves is composed which subserve sensation.—Huxley.

‘Of which’ in a defining clause is one of the recognized exceptions; but we ought to have ‘that subserve’.

It is not wages and costs of handling which fall, but profits and rents.—Times.

It has been French ports which have been chosen for the beginning and for the end of his cruise.—Times.

Who is it who talks about moral geography?—E. F. Benson.

3. We come now to the exceptions. The reader will have noticed that of all the instances given in (2) there is only one—the last—in which we recommend the substitution of ‘that’ for ‘who’; in all the others, it is a question between ‘that’ and ‘which’. ‘That’, used of persons, has in fact come to look archaic: the only cases in which it is now to be preferred to ‘who’ are those mentioned above as particularly requiring ‘that’ instead of ‘which’; those, namely, in which the antecedent is ‘it’, or has attached to it a superlative or other word of exclusive meaning. We should not, therefore, in the Spectator instance above, substitute ‘the person that desires’ for ‘who desires’; but we should say

Outside these special types, ‘that’ used of persons is apt to sound archaic.

4. It will also have been noticed that all the relatives in (2) were either in the subjective case, or in the objective without a preposition. ‘That’ has no possessive case, and cannot take a preposition before it. Accordingly ‘the man that I found the hat of’ will of course give place to ‘the man whose hat I found’; and ‘the house in which this happened’ will generally be preferred to ‘the house that this happened in’. The latter tendency is modified in the spoken language by the convenient omission of ‘that’; for always in a defining clause, though never in a non-defining, a relative in the objective case, with or without a preposition, can be dropped. But few writers like, as a general rule, either to drop their relatives or to put prepositions at the end. ‘The friends I was travelling with’, ‘the book I got it from’, ‘the place I found it in’, will therefore usually appear as

5. Euphony demands that ‘that that’ should become ‘that which’, even when the words are separated; and many writers, from a feeling that ‘which’ is the natural correlative of the demonstrative ‘that’, prefer the plural ‘those which’; but the first example quoted in (2) seems to show that ‘those ... that’ can be quite unobjectionable.

6. A certain awkwardness seems to attend the use of ‘that’ when the relative is widely separated from its antecedent. When, for instance, two relative clauses are coordinate, some writers use ‘that’ in the first, ‘which’ in the second clause, though both define. This point will be illustrated in c., where we shall notice that inconsistency in this respect sometimes obscures the sense.

It may seem to the reader that a rule with so many exceptions to it is not worth observing. We would remind him (i) that it is based upon those palpable misuses of the relatives about which every one is agreed; (ii) that of the exceptions the first and last result from, and might disappear with, the encroachment of ‘who’ and the general vagueness about the relatives; while the other two, being obvious and clearly defined, do not interfere with the remaining uses of ‘that’; (iii) that if we are to be at the expense of maintaining two different relatives, we may as well give each of them definite work to do.

In the following subsections we shall not often allude to the distinction here laid down. The reader will find that our rules are quite as often violated as observed; and may perhaps conclude that if the vital difference between a defining and a non-defining clause were consistently marked, wherever it is possible, by a discriminating use of ‘that’ and ‘which’, false coordination and other mishandlings of the relatives would be less common than they are.

c. ‘And who’; ‘and which’.

The various possibilities of relative coordination, right and wrong, may be thus stated: (i) a relative clause may be rightly or wrongly coordinated with another relative clause; this we shall call ‘open’ coordination; (ii) it may be rightly or wrongly coordinated with words that are equivalent to a relative clause, and for which a relative clause can be substituted; ‘latent’ coordination; (iii) a clause that has obviously no coordinate, open or latent, may yet be introduced by ‘and’ or other word implying coordination; for such offenders, which cannot be coordinate and will not be subordinate, ‘insubordination’ is not too harsh a term.

The following are ordinary types of the three classes:

(i) Men who are ambitious, and whose ambition has never been thwarted, ....

Pitt, who was ambitious, but whose ambition was qualified by....

(ii) Ambitious men, and whose ambition has never been thwarted, ....

An evil now, alas! beyond our power to remedy, and for which we have to thank the folly of our predecessors.

(iii) Being thus pressed, he grudgingly consented at last to a redistribution, and which, I need not say, it was his duty to have offered in the first instance.

A coordination in which ‘and’ is the natural conjunction may also be indicated simply by a comma; there is safety in this course, since the clause following the comma may be either coordinate or subordinate. But we have to deal only with clauses that are committed to coordination.

‘Insubordination’ will not detain us long; it is always due either to negligence or to gross ignorance; we shall illustrate it in its place with a few examples, but shall not discuss it. With regard, however, to open and latent coordination opinions differ; there is an optimist view of open coordination, and a pessimist view of latent, both of which seem to us incorrect. It is held by some that open coordination (provided that the relatives have the same antecedent) is never wrong, and by some—not necessarily others—that latent coordination is never right: we shall endeavour to show that the former is often wrong, and the latter, however ungainly, often right.

The essential to coordination is that the coordinates should be performing the same function in the sentence. It is not necessary, nor is it enough, that they should be in the same grammatical form: things of the same form may have different functions, and things of different forms may have the same function. If we say ‘Unambitious men, and who have no experience’, ‘unambitious’ and ‘who have no experience’ are not in the same form, but they have the same function—that of specifying the class of men referred to. Their grammatical forms (vocabulary permitting) are interchangeable: a defining adjective can always take the form of a relative clause, and a defining relative clause can often take the form of an adjective: ‘inexperienced men, and who have no ambition’. ‘Unambitious’ is therefore the true grammatical equivalent of ‘who have no ambition’, and latent coordination between it and a relative clause is admissible.

On the other hand, among things that have the same grammatical form, but different functions, are the defining and the non-defining relative clause. A non-defining clause, we know, can be removed without disturbing the truth of the predication; it has therefore no essential function; it cannot therefore have the same function as a defining clause, whose function we know to be essential. It follows that open coordination is not admissible between a defining and a non-defining clause; and, generally, coordination, whether open or latent, is admissible between two defining or two non-defining coordinates, but not between a defining and a non-defining.

Our object, however, in pointing out what seems to be the true principle of relative coordination is not by any means to encourage the latent variety. It has seldom any advantage over full coordination; it is perhaps more apt to lead to actual blunders; it is usually awkward; and it does violence—needless violence, as often as not—to a very widespread and not unreasonable prejudice. Many writers may be suspected of using it, against their better judgement, merely for the purpose of asserting a right; it is their natural protest against the wholesale condemnation of ignorant critics, who do not see that latent coordination may be nothing worse than clumsy, and that open coordination may be a gross blunder. For the benefit of such critics it seems worth while to examine the correctness of various examples, both open and latent; on the other merits and demerits of the latent variety the reader will form his own judgement.

(i) Open coordination.

A few minutes brought us to a large and busy bazaar, with the localities of which the stranger appeared well acquainted, and where his original demeanour again became apparent.—Poe.

Mr. Lovelace has seen divers apartments at Windsor; but not one, he says, that he thought fit for me, and which, at the same time, answered my description.—Richardson.

All the toys that infatuate men, and which they play for, are the self-same thing.—Emerson.

All these are correct: in the first both clauses are non-defining, in the others both define.

The hills were so broken and precipitous as to afford no passage except just upon the narrow line of the track which we occupied, and which was overhung with rocks, from which we might have been destroyed merely by rolling down stones.—Scott.

Wrong: the first clause defines, the second not.

From doing this they were prevented by the disgraceful scene which took place, and which the leader of the Opposition took no steps to avert.—Times.

Wrong. The first clause defines, the second is obviously one of comment: the ‘scene’ is not distinguished from those that the leader did take steps to avert.

They propose that the buildings shall belong ... to the communes in which they stand, and which, it is hoped, will not permit their desecration.—Spectator.

Wrong. The communes that ‘will not permit’ are not meant to be distinguished from those that will. The second clause is comment, the first defines.

The way in which she jockeyed Jos, and which she described with infinite fun, carried up his delight to a pitch....—Thackeray.

In the best French which he could muster, and which in sooth was of a very ungrammatical sort....—Thackeray.

Peggy ... would have liked to have shown her turban and bird of paradise at the ball, but for the information which her husband had given her, and which made her very grave.—Thackeray.

All these are wrong. Thackeray would probably have been saved from these false coordinations if he had observed the distinction between ‘that’ and ‘which’: ‘In the best French (that) he could muster, which in sooth was...’.

There goes another sort of animal that is differentiating from my species, and which I would gladly see exterminated.—H. G. Wells.

Probably the second clause, like the first, is meant to define: if so, the coordination is right; if not, it is wrong. We have alluded to the tendency to avoid ‘that’ when the relative is widely separated from its antecedent; here, the result is ambiguity.

And here he said in German what he wished to say, and which was of no great importance, and which I translated into English.—Borrow.

Wrong: ‘what (that which)’ defines, the ‘and which’ clauses do not.

(ii) Latent coordination, between relative clause and equivalent, is seldom correct when the relative clause is non-defining; for the equivalent, with few and undesirable exceptions, is always a defining adjective or phrase, and can be coordinate only with a defining clause. The equivalent must of course be a true one; capable, that is, of being converted into a relative clause without altering the effect of the sentence. Neglect of this restriction often results in false coordination, especially in one particular type of sentence. Suppose that a historian, after describing some national calamity, proceeds: ‘In these distressing circumstances....’ Here we might seem to have two possible equivalents, ‘these’ and ‘distressing’. First let us expand ‘these’ into a relative clause: ‘In the distressing circumstances that I have described’. This, in the context, is a fair equivalent, and as often as not would actually appear instead of ‘these’. But next expand ‘distressing’: ‘In these circumstances, which were distressing’, a non-defining clause. To this expansion no writer would consent; it defeats the object for which ‘distressing’ was placed before the antecedent. That object was to record his own sensibility without disparaging the reader’s by telling him in so many words (as our relative clause does) that the circumstances were distressing; and it is secured by treating ‘distressing’ not as a separate predication but as an inseparable part of the antecedent. ‘Distressing’, it will be observed, cannot give us a defining clause; it is obviously meant to be co-extensive with ‘these’; we are not to select from ‘these’ circumstances those only that are ‘distressing’. Moreover, as ‘these’, although capable of appearing as a relative clause, can scarcely require another relative clause to complete the limitation of the antecedent, it follows that in sentences of this form coordination will generally be wrong. We have examples in the Cowper quotation below, and in the anonymous one that precedes it.

Juices ready prepared, and which can be absorbed immediately.—Huxley.

A deliberate attempt to frame and to verify general rules as to phenomena of all kinds, and which can, therefore, be propagated by argument or persuasion....—L. Stephen.

‘Rules that shall be general, and that can....’

A painful, comprehensive survey of a very complicated matter, and which requires a great variety of considerations, is to be made.—Burke.

The goldsmith to the royal household, and who, if fame spoke true, oftentimes acted as their banker, ... was a person of too much importance to...—Scott.

‘The man who was goldsmith to ... and who’.

It is a compliment due, and which I willingly pay, to those who administer our affairs.—Burke.

All these are correct, with defining coordinates throughout.

‘A junior subaltern, with pronounced military and political views, with no false modesty in expressing them, and who (sic) possesses the ear of the public, ....’—(Quoted by the Times.)

‘Who has ... views, and who....’ ‘Sic’ is the comment of the Times writer. The coordination is correct.

While there, she had ample opportunity afforded her of studying fashionable life in all its varied and capricious moods, and which have been preserved to posterity in her admirable delineations of character.

I am sensible that you cannot in my uncle’s present infirm state, and of which it is not possible to expect any considerable amendment, indulge us with a visit.—Cowper.

These are the instances of false expansion alluded to above. The former is based on the non-defining expansion ‘in all its moods, which are varied and capricious’; the true expansion being ‘in all the varied and capricious moods in which it reveals itself’, a defining clause, which will not do with the ‘and which’. Similarly, the second is based on the non-defining expansion ‘in my uncle’s present state, which is an infirm one’; the true expansion is ‘in the infirm state in which my uncle now is’. In both, a non-defining clause is coordinated with words that can only yield a defining clause.

Previous to the innovations introduced by the Tudors, and which had been taken away by the bill against pressing soldiers, the King in himself had no power of calling on his subjects generally to bear arms.—J. R. Green.

If the writer means us to distinguish, among the innovations introduced by the Tudors, those that had also been taken away, the ‘and which’ clause defines, and the coordination is right. But more probably the clause conveys independent information; the coordination is then wrong.

[The various arrangements of pueri puellam amabant] all have the same meaning—the boys loved the girl. For puellam shows by its form that it must be the object of the action; amabant must have for its subject a plural substantive, and which must therefore be, not puellam, but pueri.—R. G. White.

Wrong. ‘A plural substantive’ can yield only the defining clause ‘a substantive that is plural’. Now these words contain an inference from a general grammatical principle (that a plural verb must have a plural subject); and any supplementary defining clause must also be general, not (like the ‘and which’ clause) particular. We might have, for instance, ‘Amabant, being plural, and finite, must have for its subject a plural substantive, and which is in the nominative case’. But the ‘and which’ clause is evidently non-defining; the inference ends at ‘substantive’; then comes the application of it to the particular case.

He refused to adopt the Restrictive Theory, and impose a numerical limit on the Bank’s issues, and which he again protested against in 1833.—H. D. Macleod.

Wrong. The ‘and which’ clause is non-defining; none of the three possible antecedents (‘Theory’, ‘limit’, ‘imposition’) will give a non-defining clause.

The great obstacle ... is the religion of Europe, and which has unhappily been colonially introduced into America.—Beaconsfield.

This illustrates an important point. ‘Of Europe’ gives the defining clause ‘that prevails in Europe’; the coordination therefore requires that the ‘and which’ clause should define. Now a defining clause must contain no word that is not meant to contribute to definition; if, then, the ‘and which’ clause defines, the writer wishes to distinguish the religion in question, not only from those European religions that have not been colonially introduced into America, but also from those European religions that have been introduced, but whose introduction is not a matter for regret; that is the only defining meaning that ‘unhappily’ can bear, and unless we accept this interpretation the clause is non-defining.—We shall allude to this sentence again in d., where the possibilities of parenthesis in a defining clause are discussed.

It may seem strange that this important place should not have been conferred on Vaca de Castro, already on the spot, and who had shown himself so well qualified to fill it.—Prescott.

One of our ‘few and undesirable exceptions’, in which the clause-equivalent is non-defining (‘who was already on the spot’); for a person’s name can only require a defining clause to distinguish him from others of the same name. The sentence is an ugly one, even if we remove the ‘and who’ clause; but the coordination is right.

(iii) Insubordination.

The struggler, the poor clerk, mechanic, poorer musician, artist, or actor, feels no right to intrude, and who quickly falls from a first transient resentment....—Daily Telegraph.

Such a person may reside there with absolute safety, unless it becomes the object of the government to secure his person; and which purpose, even then, might be disappointed by early intelligence.—Scott.

All this when Madame saw, and of which when she took note, her sole observation was:—...—C. Brontë.

To these we may add examples in which the coordinated relatives have different antecedents. In practice, nothing can justify such coordination: in theory, it is admissible when the antecedents are coordinate, as in the following sentence:

We therefore delivered the supplies to those individuals, and at those places, to whom the special grants had been made, and for which they were originally designed.

But in the following instances, one antecedent is subordinate to another in the same clause, or is in a clause subordinate to that of the other.

They marched into the apartment where the banquet was served; and which, as I have promised the reader he shall enjoy it, he shall have the liberty of ordering himself.—Thackeray.

A large mineral-water firm in London, whose ordinary shares are a million in value, and which shares always paid a dividend before the imposition of the sugar-tax, have not paid any dividend since.—Times.

He very much doubted whether I could find it on his mine, which was located some five miles from St. Austell, Cornwall, and upon whose property I had never been.—Times.

But I have besought my mother, who is apprehensive of Mr. Lovelace’s visits, and for fear of whom my uncles never stir out without arms, ...—Richardson.

It was of Mr. Lovelace that the uncles were afraid.

d. Case of the relative.

Special attention was not drawn, in the section on Case, to the gross error committed in the following examples:

Instinctively apprehensive of her father, whom she supposed it was, she stopped in the dark.—Dickens.

That peculiar air of contempt commonly displayed by insolent menials to those whom they imagine are poor.—Corelli.

It is only those converted by the Gospel whom we pretend are influenced by it.—Daily Telegraph.

We found those whom we feared might be interested to withhold the settlement alert and prompt to assist us.—Galt.

Mr. Dombey, whom he now began to perceive was as far beyond human recall.—Dickens.

Those whom it was originally pronounced would be allowed to go.—Spectator.

But this looks as if he has included the original 30,000 men whom he desires ‘should be in the country now’.—Times.

We feed children whom we think are hungry.—Times.

The only gentlemen holding this office in the island, whom, he felt sure, would work for the spiritual good of the parish.—Guernsey Advertiser.

These writers evidently think that in ‘whom we think are hungry’ ‘whom’ is the object of ‘we think’. The relative is in fact the subject of ‘are’; and the object of ‘we know’ is the clause ‘who are hungry’; the order of the words is a necessary result of the fact that a relative subject must stand at the beginning of its clause.

(The same awkward necessity confronts us in clauses with ‘when’, ‘though’, &c., in which the subject is a relative. Such clauses are practically recognized as impossible, though Otway, in a courageous moment, wrote:

Some writers, with a consistency worthy of a better cause, carry the blunder into the passive, renouncing the advantages of an ambiguous ‘which’ in the active; for in the active ‘which’ of course tells no tales.

As to all this, the trend of events has been the reverse of that which was anticipated would be the result of democratic institutions.—Times.

‘Which it was anticipated would be’. Similarly, the passive of ‘men whom we-know-are-honest’ is the impossible ‘men who are-known-are-honest’: ‘men who we know are honest’ gives the correct passive ‘men who it is known are honest’.

Nor must it be supposed that ‘we know’ is parenthetic. In non-defining clauses (Jones, who we know is honest), we can regard the words as parenthetic if we choose, except when the phrase is negative (Jones, who I cannot think is honest); but in a defining clause they are anything but parenthetic. When we say ‘Choose men who you know are honest’, the words ‘you know’ add a new circumstance of limitation: it is not enough that the men should in fact be honest; you must know them to be honest; honest men of whose honesty you are not certain are excluded by the words ‘you know’. Similarly, in the Guernsey Advertiser quotation above, the writer does not go the length of saying that these are the only gentlemen who would work: he says that they are the only ones of whom he feels sure. The commas of parenthesis ought therefore to go, as well as the comma at ‘island’, which is improper before a defining clause.

The circumstances under which a parenthesis is admissible in a defining clause may here be noticed.

(i) When the clause is too strict in its limitation, it may be modified by a parenthesis:

Choose men who, during their time of office, have never been suspected.

A whole class, excluded by the defining clause, is made eligible by the parenthesis.

(ii) Similarly, a parenthesis may be added to tell us that within the limits of the defining clause we have perfect freedom of choice:

Choose men who, at one time or another, have held office.

They must have held office, that is all; it does not matter when.

(iii) Words of comment, indicating the writer’s authority for his limitation, his recognition of the sentiments that it may arouse, and the like, properly stand outside the defining clause: when they are placed within it, they ought to be marked as parenthetic.

There are men who, so I am told, prefer a lie to truth on its own merits.

The religion that obtains in Europe, and that, unhappily, has been introduced into America.

The latter sentence is an adaptation of one considered above on p. 91. ‘Unhappily’ there appeared not as a parenthesis but as an inseparable part of the relative clause, which was therefore defining or non-defining, according as ‘unhappily’ could or could not be considered as adding to the limitation. But with the altered punctuation ‘unhappily’ is separable from the relative clause, which may now define: ‘that obtains in Europe and (I am sorry to have to add) in America.’

In sentences of this last type, the parenthesis is inserted in the defining clause only for convenience: in the others, it is an essential, though a negative, part of the definition. But all three types of parenthesis agree in this, that they do not limit the antecedent; they differ completely from the phrases considered above, which do limit the antecedent, and are not parenthetic.

e. Miscellaneous uses and abuses of the relative.

(i) A relative clause is sometimes coordinated with an independent sentence; such coordination is perhaps always awkward, but is not always incorrect. The question arises chiefly when the two have a common subject expressed only in the relative clause; for when the subject is expressed in both, the independent sentence may be taken to be coordinate, not with the relative clause, but with the main sentence to which the relative clause is attached, as in the following instance:

To begin with, he had left no message, which in itself I felt to be a suspicious circumstance, and (I) was at my wits’ end how to account plausibly for his departure.

Retain ‘I’, and ‘I was’ may be coordinate with ‘he had left’: remove it, and the coordination is necessarily between ‘I was’ and ‘I felt’. In our next examples the writers are committed:

These beatitudes are just laws which we have been neglecting, and have been receiving in ourselves the consequences that were meet.—Daily Telegraph.

The idea which mankind most commonly conceive of proportion, is the suitableness of means to certain ends, and, where this is not the question, very seldom trouble themselves about the effect of different measures of things.—Burke.

Fictitious capital, a name of extreme inaccuracy, which too many persons are in the habit of using, from the hasty assumption that what is not real must necessarily be fictitious, and are more led away by a jingling antithesis of words than an accurate perception of ideas.—H. D. Macleod.

The first two of these are wrongly coordinated: the third, a curiosity in other respects, is in this respect right. The reason is that in the first two we have a defining, in the third a non-defining relative clause. A defining clause is grammatically equivalent to an adjective (‘violated laws’, ‘the popular idea’), and can be coordinated only with another word or phrase performing the same function; now the phrase ‘we have been receiving’, not being attached to the antecedent by means of a relative, expressed or understood, is not equivalent to an adjective. We could have had ‘and (which we) have been properly punished for neglecting’, or we could have had the ‘and’ sentence in an adverbial form, ‘with the fitting result’; but coordination between the two as they stand is impossible.

The Burke sentence is a worse offender. Coordination of this kind is not often attempted when the antecedent of the relative is subject of the main sentence; and when it is attempted, the two coordinates must of course not be separated by the predicate. If we had had ‘the idea which mankind most commonly conceive of proportion, and very seldom trouble themselves about anything further’, the coordination would have been similar to the other, and could have been rectified in the same way (‘and beyond which they very seldom ...’, or ‘to the exclusion of any other considerations’). But this alteration we cannot make; for there is a further and an essential difference. The Daily Telegraph writer evidently meant his second coordinate to do the work of a defining clause; he has merely failed to make the necessary connexion, which we supply, as above, either by turning the words into a second defining clause, or by embodying them, adverbially, in the first. Burke’s intention is different, and would not be represented by our proposed alteration in the order. All that a defining clause can do in his sentence is to tell us what idea is going to be the subject. If we were to give a brief paraphrase of the whole, italicizing the words that represent the second coordinate, it would be, not ‘mankind’s sole idea of proportion is the suitableness ...’, but ‘mankind’s idea of proportion is the suitableness ..., and very little else’; for the question answered is, not ‘what is mankind’s sole idea?’ but ‘what is mankind’s idea?’ In other words, the second coordinate belongs in intention not, like the relative clause, to the subject, but to the predicate; to rectify it, we must either make it part of the predicate (‘and is not concerned with ...’), or, by inserting ‘they’, coordinate it with the main sentence. Obvious as the latter correction is, the sentence repays close examination, as illustrating the incoherence of thought that may underlie what seems a very trifling grammatical slip.

But in our third example, the relative clause is non-defining; it is grammatically equivalent to, and could be replaced by, an independent sentence: ‘Many persons are in the habit of using it’. There is nothing grammatically wrong in this type of coordination; it is objectionable only because it seems to promise what it does not fulfil. When the common subject of two coordinates is expressed only with the first, it is natural to assume that all words preceding it are also to be applied to both coordinates; and the violation of this principle, though not of course ungrammatical, is often felt to be undesirable in other than relative clauses.

(ii) In the sentences considered above, the antecedent of the relative did not belong to the second coordinate, and could not have been represented in it without the material alterations there proposed. But it may also happen that the antecedent, as in the following examples, belongs equally to both coordinates, being represented in the first by a relative, in the second by some other pronoun.

There were two or three whose accuracy was more scrupulous, their judgement more uniformly sober and cautious.—Bryce.

He renewed the old proposal, which Pizarro treated as a piece of contemptible shuffling, and curtly rejected it.

Which she has it in her option either to do or to let it alone.—Richardson.

In the pair of parallel coordinates from Mr. Bryce, insert the suppressed ‘was’, and it becomes clear that ‘whose’, not ‘their’, is the right pronoun.

In the ‘Pizarro’ sentence, ‘it’ is not only superfluous, but disturbing to the reader, who assumes that ‘which’ is common to both clauses, and on reaching ‘it’ has to glance back and check the sentence. Here, as often, the pronoun seems to be added to restore an ill-balanced sentence; but that can be done in several other ways. In the Richardson sentence also the ‘it’ should go.

More commonly, the repetition of the antecedent in another form results from the superstitious avoidance of a preposition at the end:

A demand by Norway for political separation, to which Sweden will not assent, but will not go to war to prevent it.—Times.

‘To (which)’ is not common to both coordinates: accordingly the writer finds it necessary to give ‘it’ in the second. But, even if we respect our superstition, and exclude ‘which Sweden will not assent to, but will not go to war to prevent’, we have still the two possibilities of (1) complete relative coordination, ‘to ..., but which ...’; (2) subordination, ‘though she will not go to war to prevent it’.

In our next example, Lord Rosebery, again for fear of a preposition at the end, falls into the trap clumsily avoided by the Times writer:

That promised land for which he was to prepare, but scarcely to enter.

So perhaps Bagehot, though his verb may be conceive of:

English trade is carried on upon borrowed capital to an extent of which few foreigners have an idea, and none of our ancestors could have conceived.

(iii) When the relative is the subject of both coordinates, or the object of both, its repetition in the second is a matter of choice. But to omit the relative when it is in a different case from the first is a gross, though not uncommon, blunder. The following are instances:

A league which their posterity for many ages kept so inviolably, and proved so advantageous for both the kingdoms of France and Scotland.—Lockhart.

Questions which we either do not put to ourselves, or are turned aside with traditional replies.—Mark Rutherford.

It is just conceivable that in the last of these the subject of ‘are’ is ‘we’: if so, the sentence is to be referred to (i) above (wrong coordination of an independent sentence with a defining relative clause).

It is not easy to see why the relative more than other words should be mishandled in this way; few would write (but see p. 61, s. f.) ‘This league we kept and has proved advantageous’.

The condensed antecedent-relative ‘what’ is only an apparent exception to this universal rule. In the sentence ‘What I hold is mine’, ‘what’ is only object to ‘hold’, not subject to ‘is’; the subject to ‘is’ is the whole noun-clause ‘what I hold’. Sentences of this type, so far from being exceptions, often give a double illustration of the rule, and leave a double possibility of error. For just as a single ‘what’ cannot stand in different relations to two coordinate verbs in its clause, so a single noun-clause cannot stand in different relations to two coordinate main verbs. We can say ‘What I have and hold’, where ‘what’ is object to both verbs, and ‘what is mine and has been fairly earned by me’, where it is subject to both; but we cannot say ‘what I have and has been fairly earned by me’. Similarly, we can say ‘What I have is mine and shall remain mine’, where the noun-clause ‘what I have’ is subject to both verbs, and ‘What I have I mean to keep, and will surrender to no man’, where it is object to both; but not ‘What I have is mine, and I will surrender to no man’. Of the various ways of avoiding this error (subordination, adaptation of verbs, insertion of a pronoun, relative or otherwise), that chosen by Miss Brontë below is perhaps the least convenient. Her sentence is, however, correct; that from the Spectator is not.

Not mere empty ideas, but what were once realities, and that I long have thought decayed.—C. Brontë.

Whatever we possessed in 1867 the British Empire possesses now, and is part of the Dominion of Canada.—Spectator.

‘Things that were once realities, and that I long have thought decayed’; a pair of defining clauses.

The condensed ‘what’ must of course be distinguished from the ‘what’ of indirect questions, which is not relative but interrogative. In the following example, confusion of the two leads to an improper coordination.

What sums he made can only be conjectured, but must have been enormous.—Macaulay.

In the first sentence, ‘what’ is an interrogative, in the second, a condensed antecedent-relative, standing for ‘the sums that’. It is the sums that were enormous: it is the answer to the question ‘What sums did he make?’ that can only be conjectured. The mistake is possible only because ‘can’ and ‘must’ do not reveal their number: ‘can’ is singular, ‘must’ plural.

The differentiation between the two whats and their equivalents is not, indeed, complete: just as the condensed antecedent-relative resembles in form, though not in treatment, the unresolved interrogative, so the interrogative, by resolution into ‘the ... that (which)’, not only resembles, but is grammatically identified with, the uncondensed relative and antecedent. The resolution is, no doubt, convenient: it should be noticed, however, that the verbs with which alone it can be employed (verbs that may denote either perception of a fact or other kinds of perception) are precisely those with which ambiguity may result. ‘I know the house (that) you mean’: it may (antecedent and relative) or may not (resolved interrogative) follow that I have ever seen it. ‘We must first discover the scoundrel who did it’; antecedent and relative? then we must secure the scoundrel’s person; resolved interrogative? then only information is needed. ‘I can give a good guess at the problem that is puzzling you’: and the solution?—I know nothing of the solution; I was resolving an interrogative.

This, however, does not affect sentences like the Macaulay one above: for although the resolved or uncondensed forms (‘the ... which’) are grammatically identified, the condensed or unresolved forms (‘what’) are not.

(iv) The omission of the relative in isolated clauses (as opposed to coordinates) is a question not of correctness but of taste, so far as there is any question at all. A non-defining relative can never be omitted. The omission of a defining relative subject is often effective in verse, but in prose is either an archaism or a provincialism. It may, moreover, result in obscurity, as in the second of our examples, which may possibly puzzle the reader for a moment:

Now it would be some fresh insect won its way to a temporary fatal new development—H. G. Wells.

No one finds himself planted at last in so terribly foul a morass, as he would fain stand still for ever on dry ground.—Trollope.

But when the defining relative is object, or has a preposition, there is no limit to the omission, unless euphony is allowed to be one. We give three instances in which the reader may or may not agree that the relative might have been retained with advantage:

We do that in our zeal our calmer moments would be afraid to answer.—Scott.

But did you ever see anything there you had never seen before?—Bagehot.

These ethical judgements we pass on self-regarding acts are ordinarily little emphasized.—Spencer.

(v) When a defining relative has the same preposition as its antecedent, it is not uncommon, in the written as well as in the spoken language, to omit the preposition in the relative clause. There is something to be said for a licence that rids us of such cumbrous formulae as ‘in the way in which’, ‘to the extent to which’, and the like; in writing, however, it should be used with caution if at all.

In the first place, if the preposition is to go, the relative should go too, or if retained should certainly be ‘that’, not ‘which’; and if the verb of the relative clause is the same as in the main sentence, it should be represented by ‘do’, or (in a compound tense) by its auxiliary component.

Because they found that it touched them in a way which no book in the world could touch them.—Daily Telegraph.

The man who cleaned the slate in the manner which Sir E. Satow has done both in Morocco and Japan might surely rank as a reflective diplomatist.—Spectator.

‘In a way no other book in the world could’: ‘in the way (that) Sir E. Satow has done’.

A further limitation is suggested by our next example:

The Great Powers, after producing this absolutely certain result, are ending with what they ought to have begun,—coercion.—Spectator.

Here, of course, the relative cannot be omitted, since relative and antecedent are one. But that is not the principal fault, as will appear from a resolution of the antecedent-relative: ‘they are ending with the very thing (that) they ought to have begun ...’. We are now at liberty to omit our relative or retain it, as we please; in either case, the omission of ‘with’ is unbearable. The reason is that ‘with’ does not, like the ‘in’ of our former examples, introduce a purely adverbial phrase: it is an inseparable component of the compound verbs ‘end-with’ and ‘begin-with’, of which the antecedent and relative are respectively the objects. Similarly, we cannot say ‘He has come to the precise conclusion (that) I thought he would come’, because we should be mutilating the verb to ‘come-to’; we can, however, say ‘to the conclusion (that) I thought he would’, ‘come-to’ being then represented by ‘would’.

Finally, the omission is justifiable only when antecedent and relative have the same preposition. Sentences like the next may pass in conversation, but (except with the one noun way) are intolerable in writing:

One of the greatest dangers in London is the pace that the corners in the main streets are turned.—Times.

(vi) The use of ‘such ... who (which)’, ‘such ... that (defining relative)’, for ‘such ... as’ is sometimes an archaism, sometimes a vulgarism.

Till such time when we shall throw aside our earthly garment.—Daily Telegraph.

Only such supplies were to be made which it would be inhuman to refuse to ships in distress.—Times.

The censorship of literature extends to such absurd prohibitions which it did not reach even during the worst period of the forties.—Times.

A God in such an abstract sense that, as I have pointed out before, does not signify.—Daily Telegraph.

They would find such faith, such belief, that would be a revelation to them.—Daily Telegraph.

Swift’s plan was to offer to fulfil it on conditions so insulting that no one with a grain of self-respect could accept.—L. Stephen.

f. ‘It ... that.’

Two constructions, closely allied, but grammatically distinct, are often confused: (i) Antecedent ‘it’ followed by a defining relative clause with ‘that’ (who, which); (ii) ‘it’ followed by a clause in apposition, introduced by the conjunction ‘that’. The various correct possibilities are represented in the set of examples given below. Relative clauses are marked R, conjunction clauses C. One impossible example is added in brackets, to mark the transition from relative to conjunction.

(1) It is money that I want. R.

(2) It was you that told me. R.

(3) It was you that I gave it to (or, to whom I gave it). R.

(4) It was to you that I gave it. C.

(5) It was the Romans that built this wall. R.

(6) It is the Romans that we are indebted to for this. R.

(7) It is to the Romans that we are indebted for this. C.

(8) It was Jones whose hat I borrowed. R.

(9) It was Jones’s hat that I borrowed. R.

(10) It was a knife that I cut it with. R.

(11) It was with a knife that I cut it. C.

(12) It was with difficulty that I cut it. C.

(13) (It was difficulty that I cut it with.) R.

(14) It was provisionally that I made the offer. C.

(15) It was in this spring, too, that the plague broke out. C.

(16) Accordingly, it was with much concern that I presently received a note informing me of his departure. C.

In the relative construction, the antecedent ‘it’ is invariable, whatever the number and gender of the relative. The main verb is also invariable in number, but in tense is usually adapted to past, though not (for euphony’s sake) to future circumstances: ‘it was you that looked foolish’, but ‘it is you that will look foolish’.

In both constructions, the ‘that’ clause, supplemented or introduced by ‘it’, gives us the subject of a predication, the relative clause (with it) being equivalent to a pure noun, the conjunction clause to a verbal noun in apposition, partly retaining its verbal character. In both, also, the predication answers an imaginary question, recorded distinctly in the relative, less distinctly in the conjunction clause. ‘What do you want?’ ‘It (the thing) that I want is money.’ ‘To whom did you give it?’ ‘It (the persons) that I gave it to was your friends.’ ‘As to your cutting it: give particulars.’ ‘It—that I cut it (my cutting it)—was with a knife.’

From the above examples it will be seen that the two constructions largely overlap. When (as in 1, 2, 5, 8) the relative is subject or direct object of the clause-verb, or is in the possessive case, it cannot be replaced by the conjunction; but when its relation to the clause-verb is marked by a preposition, the conjunction always may take its place, and sometimes must, as in 12 and 13. For the relative clause can only be used when the question reflected in it is calculated to secure the right kind of answer. Now the natural answer to the question ‘What did you cut it with?’ is not ‘difficulty’ but ‘a knife’. The misleading ‘with’ is therefore removed from the relative clause in 13, and placed within the predicate, the definite question ‘What did you cut it with?’ giving place to the vague demand for particulars. ‘With’ being removed, the relative clause falls to pieces, for want of a word to govern the relative, and the conjunction clause takes its place. In the same way, ‘it was a cab (but not high indignation) that he drove away in’; ‘it was a concert (but not curiosity) that I was returning from’; ‘it was a beech-tree (but not unpleasant circumstances) that I found him under’. And, generally, it will be found that a preposition is admissible in the relative clause only when used in the literal or the most obvious sense.

The conjunction clause is, as we have said, a verbal noun; so far a noun that things can be predicated of it, and so far a verb that the things predicated of it are verbal relations and verbal circumstances, indirect object, agent, instrument, means, manner, cause, attendant circumstances; anything but subject and direct object. ‘My giving was to you’; ‘my offering was provisionally’; ‘my concealing it was because I was ashamed’.

The mistakes that constantly occur in careless writers result from hesitation between the two forms where both are possible. The confusion, however, ought not to arise; for always with a relative clause, and never with a conjunction, the complement of the main predicate (the answer to the suppressed question) is a noun or the grammatical equivalent of a noun. ‘A knife’, ‘Jones’, ‘you’, ‘my friend in Chicago’, ‘the man who lives next door’, are the answers that accompany the relative clause: ‘with a knife’, ‘with difficulty’, ‘to you’, ‘occasionally’, ‘because I was ashamed’, are those that accompany the conjunction.

Examples 15 and 16, though quite recognized types, are really artificial perversions. In 15 the true question and answer in the circumstances would be, not, as the sentence falsely implies, ‘When did the plague break out?’ ‘That too happened in this same spring’, but ‘Were there any other notable events in this spring?’ ‘Yes: the plague broke out’. Impressiveness is given to the announcement by the fiction that the reader is wondering when the plague broke out; in fact, he is merely waiting for whatever may turn up in the history of this spring. In 16 we go still further: the implied question, ‘What were your feelings on receiving a (not the) note ...?’ could not possibly be asked; the information that alone could prompt it is only given in the ‘that’ clause.

It has been pointed out in b. that a relative clause with antecedent ‘it’ particularly calls for the relative ‘that’, in preference to ‘which’, and even to ‘who’. Even when the relative is in the possessive case, ‘that’, which has no possessive, is often retained by transferring to the main predicate the noun on which it depends; 8 thus gives place to 9, even at the risk of ambiguity; for the relative clause now supplies us with the question (not ‘whose hat ...?’ but) but ‘what did you borrow?’ leaving us theoretically in doubt whether Jones’s hat is distinguished from his other property, from other people’s hats, or from things in general.

On the other hand, the two blunders that are most frequently made almost invariably have the relative ‘who’ or ‘which’.

And it is to me, the original promoter of the whole scheme, to whom they would deny my fair share in the profits!

‘To me’ implies a conjunction clause: ‘to whom ...’ is a relative clause. ‘It is to me that...’.

It was to Mrs. Brent, the beetle-browed wife of Mr. Commissary Brent, to whom the General transferred his attentions now.—Thackeray.

It is to you whom I address a history which may perhaps fall into very different hands.—Scott.