The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (read books for money TXT) 📖

Murray.] The comma is omitted before the relative, when the verb which the antecedent governs, follows the relative clause; as, 'He that suffers by imposture, has too often his virtue more impaired than his fortune.'—Johnson." See Sanborn's Analytical Gram., p. 269. Such are some of our author's principles—"the essence of modern improvements." His practice, though often wrong, is none the worse for contradicting these doctrines. Nay, his proudest boast is ungrammatical, though peradventure not the less believed: "No [other] grammar in the language probably contains so great a quantity of condensed and useful matter with so little superfluity."—Sanborn's Preface, p. v.

OBS. 29.—Murray's rule for the punctuation of relatives, (a rule which he chiefly copied from Lowth,) recognizes virtually the distinction which I have made above; but, in assuming that relatives "generally" require a comma before them, it erroneously suggests that the resumptive sense is more common than the restrictive. Churchill, on the contrary, as wrongly makes it an essential characteristic of all relatives, "to limit or explain the words to which they refer." See his New Gram., p. 74. The fact is, that relatives are so generally restrictive, that not one half of them are thus pointed; though some that do restrict their antecedent, nevertheless admit the point. This may be seen by the first example given us by Murray: "Relative pronouns are connective words, and generally admit a comma before them: as, 'He preaches sublimely, who lives a sober, righteous, and pious life.' But when two members, or phrases, [say clauses,] are closely connected by a relative, restraining the general notion of the antecedent to a particular sense, the comma should be omitted: as, 'Self-denial is the sacrifice which virtue must make;' 'A man who is of a detracting spirit, will misconstrue the most innocent words that can be put together.' In the latter example, the assertion is not of 'a man in general,' but of 'a man who is of a detracting spirit;' and therefore they [say the pronoun and its antecedent] should not be separated."—Murray's Gram., Octavo, p. 273; Ingersoll's, 285; Comly's, 152. This reasoning, strictly applied, would exclude the comma before who in the first example above; but, as the pronoun does not "closely" or immediately follow its antecedent, the comma is allowed, though it is not much needed. Not so, when the sense is resumptive: as, "The additions, which are very considerable, are chiefly such as are calculated to obviate objections." See Murray's Gram., p. ix. Here the comma is essential to the meaning. Without it, which would be equivalent to that; with it, which is equivalent to and they. But this latter meaning, as I imagine, cannot be expressed by the relative that.

OBS. 30.—Into the unfortunate example which Sanborn took from Murray, I have inserted the comma for him; not because it is necessary or right, but because his rule requires it: "Self-denial is the sacrifice," &c. The author of "a complete system of grammar," might better contradict even Murray, than himself. But why was this text admired? and why have Greene, Bullions, Hiley, Hart, and others, also copied it? A sacrifice is something devoted and lost, for the sake of a greater good; and, if Virtue sacrifice self-denial, what will she do, but run into indulgence? The great sacrifice which she demands of men, is rather that of their self-love. Wm. E. Russell has it, "Self defence is the sacrifice which virtue must make!"—Russell's Abridgement of Murray's Gram., p. 116. Bishop Butler tells us, "It is indeed ridiculous to assert, that self-denial is essential to virtue and piety; but it would have been nearer the truth, though not strictly the truth itself, to have said, that it is essential to discipline and improvement."—Analogy of Religion, p. 123.

OBS. 31.—The relative that, though usually reckoned equivalent to who or which, evidently differs from both, in being more generally, and perhaps more appropriately, taken in the restrictive sense. It ought therefore, for distinction's sake, to be preferred to who or which, whenever an antecedent not otherwise limited, is to be restricted by the relative clause; as, "Men that grasp after riches, are never satisfied."—"I love wisdom that is gay and civilized."—Art of Thinking, p. 34. This phraseology leaves not the limitation of the meaning to depend solely upon the absence of a pause after the antecedent; because the relative that is seldom, if ever, used by good writers in any other than a restrictive sense. Again: "A man of a polite imagination is let into a great many pleasures that the vulgar are not capable of receiving."—Addison, Spect., No. 411. Here, too, according to my notion, that is obviously preferable to which; though a great critic, very widely known, has taken some pains to establish a different opinion. The "many pleasures" here spoken of, are no otherwise defined, than as being such as "the vulgar are not capable of receiving." The writer did not mean to deny that the vulgar are capable of receiving a great many pleasures; but, certainly, if that were changed to which, this would be the meaning conveyed, unless the reader were very careful to avoid a pause where he would be apt to make one. I therefore prefer Addison's expression to that which Dr. Blair would substitute.

OBS. 32.—The style of Addison is more than once censured by Dr. Blair, for the frequency with which the relative that occurs in it, where the learned lecturer would have used which. The reasons assigned by the critic are these: "Which is a much more definitive word than that, being never employed in any other way than as a relative; whereas that is a word of many senses; sometimes a demonstrative pronoun, often a conjunction. In some cases we are indeed obliged to use that for a relative, in order to avoid the ungraceful repetition of which in the same sentence. But when we are laid under no necessity of this kind, which is always the preferable word, and certainly was so in this sentence: 'Pleasures which the vulgar are not capable of receiving,' is much better than 'pleasures that the vulgar are not capable of receiving.'"—Blair's Rhetoric, Lect. xx, p. 200. Now the facts are these: (1.) That that is the more definitive or restrictive word of the two. (2.) That the word which has as many different senses and uses as the word that. (3.) That not the repetition of which or who in a series of clauses, but a needless change of the relative, is ungraceful. (4.) That the necessity of using that rather than which or who, depends, not upon what is here supposed, but upon the different senses which these words usually convey. (5.) That as there is always some reason of choice, that is sometimes to be preferred; which, sometimes; and who, sometimes: as, "It is not the man who has merely taught, or who has taught long, or who is able to point out defects in authors, that is capable of enlightening the world in the respective sciences which have engaged his attention; but the man who has taught well."—Kirkham's Elocution, p. 7.

OBS. 33.—Blair's Rhetoric consists of forty-seven lectures; four of which are devoted to a critical examination of the style of Addison, as exhibited in four successive papers of the Spectator. The remarks of the professor are in general judicious; but, seeing his work is made a common textbook for students of "Belles Lettres," it is a pity to find it so liable to reprehension on the score of inaccuracy. Among the passages which are criticised in the twenty-first lecture, there is one in which the essayist speaks of the effects of novelty as follows:

'It is this which bestows charms on a monster, and makes even the imperfections of nature please us. It is this that recommends variety, where the mind is every instant called off to something new, and the attention not suffered to dwell too long and waste itself on any particular object. It is this, likewise, that improves what is great or beautiful, and makes it afford the mind a double entertainment.'—Spectator, No. 412.

This passage is deservedly praised by the critic, for its "perspicuity, grace, and harmony;" but, in using different relatives under like circumstances, the writer has hardly done justice to his own good taste. Blair's remark is this: "His frequent use of that, instead of which, is another peculiarity of his style; but, on this occasion in particular, [it] cannot be much commended, as, 'It is this which,' seems, in every view, to be better than, 'It is this that,' three times repeated."—Lect. xxi, p. 207. What is here meant by "every view," may, I suppose, be seen in the corresponding criticism which is noticed in my last observation above; and I am greatly deceived, if, in this instance also, the relative that is not better than which, and more agreeable to polite usage. The direct relative which corresponds to the introductory pronoun it and an other antecedent, should, I think, be that, and not who or which: as, "It is not ye that speak."—Matt., x, 20. "It is thou, Lord, who hast the hearts of all men in thy hands, that turnest the hearts of any to show me favour."—Jenks's Prayers, p. 278. Here who has reference to thou or Lord only; but that has some respect to the pronoun it, though it agrees in person and gender with thou. A similar example is cited at the close of the preceding observation; and I submit it to the reader, whether the word that, as it there occurs, is not the only fit word for the place it occupies. So in the following examples: "There are Words, which are not Verbs, that signify actions and passions, and even things transient."—Brightland's Gram., p. 100. "It is the universal taste of mankind, which is subject to no such changing modes, that alone is entitled to possess any authority."—Blair's Rhetoric, p. 286.

OBS. 34.—Sometimes the broad import of an antecedent is doubly restricted, first by one relative clause, and then by an other; as, "And all that dwell upon the earth, shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life."—Rev., xiii, 8. "And then, like true Thames-Watermen, they abuse every man that passes by, who is better dressed than themselves."—Brown's Estimate, Vol. ii, p. 10. Here and, or if he, would be as good as "who;" for the connective only serves to carry the restriction into narrower limits. Sometimes the limit fixed by one clause is extended by an other; as, "There is no evil that you may suffer, or that you may expect to suffer, which prayer is not the appointed means to alleviate."—Bickersteth, on Prayer, p. 16. Here which resumes the idea of "evil," in the extent last determined; or rather, in that which is fixed by either clause, since the limits of both are embraced in the assertion. And, in the two limiting clauses, the same pronoun was requisite, on account of their joint relation; but the clause which assumes a different relation, is rightly introduced by a different pronoun. This is also the case in the following examples: "For there is no condemnation to those that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."—Barclay's Works, Vol. i, p. 432. "I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns."—Rev., xvii, 7. Here the restrictive sense is well expressed by one relative, and the resumptive by an other. When neither of these senses is intended by the writer, any form of the relative must needs be improper: as, "The greatest genius which runs through the arts and sciences, takes a kind of tincture from them, and falls unavoidably into imitation."—Addison, Spect., No. 160. Here, as I suppose, which runs should be in running. What else can the author have meant?

OBS. 35.—Having now, as I imagine, clearly shown the difference between the restrictive and the resumptive sense of a relative pronoun, and the absolute necessity of making such a choice of words as will express that sense only which we intend; I hope the learner will see, by these observations, not merely that clearness requires the occasional use of each of our five relatives, who, which, what, that, and as; but that this distinction in the meaning, is a very common principle by which to determine what is, and what is not, good English. Thus that and as are appropriately our restrictive relatives, though who and which are sometimes used restrictively; but, in a resumptive sense, who or which is required, and required even after those terms which usually demand that or as: thus, "We are vexed at the unlucky chance, and go away dissatisfied. Such impressions, which ought not to be cherished, are a sufficient reason for excluding stories of that kind from the theatre."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 279. Here which is proper to the sense