tion and makes the following words relate entirely to Solomon, as nothing had been affirmed concerning David. It is more difficult to avoid the ambiguity in the other instance, without adopting some circumlocution that will flatten the expression. In the style that prevailed in this island about two centuries ago, they would have escaped the ambiguous construction in some such way as this, "Solomon, the son of David, even of him whom Saul persecuted, was the richest: -." But this phraseology has, to modern ears, I know not what air of formality that renders it intolerable. Better thus, "Solomon, whose father David was persecuted by Saul, was the richest "The following quotation exhibits a triple sense, arising from the same cause, the indeterminate use of the relative;— Such were the centaurs of Ixion's race, Who a bright cloud for Juno did embraces. Was it the centaurs, or Ixion, or his race, that embraced the cloud? I cannot help observing further on this passage, that the relative ought grammatically, for a reason to be assigned afterwards, rather to refer to centaurs than to either of the other two, and least of all to Ixion, to which it was intended to refer6. But there is often an ambiguity in the relatives who, which, that, whose, and whom, even when there can be no doubt in regard to the antecedent. This arises from the different ways wherein the latter is affected by the former. To express myself in the language of grammarians, these pronouns are sometimes explicative, sometimes determinative, They are explicative when they serve merely for the illustration of the subject, by pointing out either some property or some circumstance belonging to it, leaving it, however, to be understood in its full extent. Of this kind are the following examples: "Man, who is born of woman, is of few days and full of trouble." "Godliness, which Denham's Progress of Learning. Let it not be imagined that in this particular our tongue has the disadvantage of other languages. The same difficulty, as far as my acquaintance with them reaches, affects them all; and even some modern tongues in a higher degree than ours. In English, one is never at a loss to discover whether the reference be to persons or to things. In French and Italian the expression is often ambiguous in this respect also. In a French devotional book I find this pious admonition :-" Conservezvous dans l'amour de Dieu, qui peut vous garantir de toute chute." I ask whether the antecedent here be l'amour or Dieu, since the relative qui is of such extensive import as to be applicable to either. The expression would be equally ambiguous in Italian, "Conservatevi nell' amor di Dio, che vi puo conservare senza intoppo." In English, according to the present use, there would be no ambiguity in the expression. If the author meant to ascribe this energy to the devout affection itself, he would say, Keep yourselves in the love of God, which can preserve you from falling;" if to God the great object of our love, he would say, "who can preserve you."-This convenient distinction was not, however, uniformly observed with us till about the middle of the last century. with contentnent is great gain, has the promise both of the present life and of the future." The clause, " who is born of woman," in the first example, and "which with contentment is great gain," in the second, point to certain properties in the antecedents, but do not restrain their signification. For, should we omit these clauses altogether, we could say with equal truth, "Man is of few days and full of trouble." "Godliness has the promise both of the present life and of the future." On the other hand, these pronouns are determinative, when they are employed to limit the import of the antecedent, as in these instances: "The man that endureth to the end shall be saved." "The remorse, which issues in reformation, is true repentance." Each of the relatives here confines the signification of its antecedent to such only as are possessed of the qualification mentioned. For it is not affirmed of every man that he shall be saved; nor of all remorse, that it is true repentance. From comparing the above examples, it may be fairly collected, that with us the definite article is of great use for discriminating the explicative sense from the determinative. In the first case it is rarely used, in the second it ought never to be omitted, unless when something still more definite, such as a demonstrative pronoun, supplies its place. The following passage is faulty in this respect: "I know that all words, which are signs of complex ideas, furnish matter of mistake and cavils." As words, the antecedent, has neither the article nor a demonstrative pronoun to connect it with the subsequent relative, it would seem that the clause" which are signs of complex ideas," were merely explicative, and that the subject words were The In this respect the articles are more subservient to perspicuity in our tongue than in many others. In French, a writer must give the article indiscriminately in all the instances above specified. Thus, "L'homme, qui est né de la femme, vit très-peu de tems, et il est rempli de misères ; " and "L'homme, qui persévérera jusqu'à la fin, sera sauvé." In like manner, La pieté, qui jointe avec le contentement est un grand gain, a les promesses de la vie présente, et de celle qui est à venir;" and "Le remors, qui aboutit à la reformation, est le vrai repentir.' like indistinctness will be found to obtain in Italian and some other modern languages, and arises, in a great measure, from their giving the article almost invariably to abstracts. In some instances, there appears of late a tendency in writers, especially on politics, to give up this advantage entirely; not by adding the article to abstracts but (which equally destroys the distinction) by omitting it when the term has a particular application. How often do we now find, even in books, such phrases as the following! This was an undertaking too arduous for private persons unaided by government." "It is hard to say what measure administration will next adopt." As in both cases it is the present government and the present administration of the country of the author that is meant, these nouns ought to have the definite article prefixed to them, and can scarcely be called English without it. The former of these words is indeed frequently used in the abstract, in which case it never has the article, as thus: "Government is absolutely necessary in all civilized societies." "He published tracts on various subjects, on religion, government, trade, &c." Abuses, such as that here criticized, greatly hurtful to perspicuity and precision, arise first in conversation, thence they creep into newspapers, thence into pamphlets, and at last unwarily find admission into books. 8 Bolingbroke's Dissertation on Parties, Let. 12. to be understood in the utmost latitude, This could not be the writer's sense, as it would be absurd to affirm of all words, that they are signs of complex ideas. He ought therefore to have said either, "I know that all the words which are signs of complex ideas," or "I know that all those words which are signs- Either of these ways makes the clause beginning with the relative serve to limit the import of the antecedent. There are certain cases, it must be owned, wherein the antecedent would require the article, even though the relatives were intended solely for explication, as in these words of the Psalmist: "My goodness extendeth not to thee; but to the saints, and to the excellent ones, in whom is all my delight." The last clause is probably not restrictive, the words saints and excellent ones necessarily requiring the article. Now when such antecedents are followed by a determinative, they ought, for distinction's sake, to be attended with the demonstrative pronoun, as thus, "but to those saints, and to those excellent ones in whom—." Through not attending to this circumstance, the translators of the Bible have rendered the following passage ambiguous, even in regard to the antecedent; "There stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve1." The relatives here whose and whom refer more regularly to angel than to God. This, however, is not agreeable to the sense of the apostle. The words, therefore, ought to have been translated "an angel of the God," or "of that God, whose I am, and whom I serve." For though the term God in strict propriety can be applied only to one, and may therefore be thought to stand on the same footing with proper names, it is, in the common way of using, an appellative, and follows the construction of appellatives. Thus we say, "the God of Abraham," "the God of armies." Besides, Paul in the passage quoted was speaking to heathens; and this circumstance gives an additional propriety to the article. For an instance of ambiguity in the construction of the pronoun his, I shall borrow an example from a French grammarian3; for though an equivocal word can rarely be translated by an equivocal word, it is very easy, when two languages have a considerable degree of similarity in their structure and analogy, to transfer an ambiguity from one to the other. The instance I mean is this, "Lisias promised to his father never to abandon his friends." Were they his own friends, or his father's, whom Lisias promised never to abandon? This sentence rendered literally would be ambiguous in most modern tongues*. 9 Psalm xvi. 2, 3. 2 Αγγελος του Θεου οὗ ειμι και ᾧ λατρευω. 1 Acts xxvii. 23. It would not be ambiguous in Latin. The distinction which obtains in that tongue between the pronous suus and ejus would totally preclude all doubt. In the earliest and simplest times, the dramatic manner in which people were accustomed to relate the plainest facts, served effectually to exclude all ambiguities of this sort from their writings. They would have said, "Lisias gave a promise to his father in these words, I will never abandon my friends," if they were his own friends of whom he spoke; "your friends," if they were his father's. It is, I think, to be regretted, that the moderns have too much departed from this primitive simplicity. It doth not want some advantages, besides that of perspicuity. It is often more picturesque, as well as more affecting; though it must be owned, it requires so many words, and such frequent repetitions of he said, he answered, and the like, that the dialogue, if long, is apt to grow irksome. But it is at least pardonable to adopt this method occasionally, where it can serve to remove an ambiguity. As the turn which Buffier gives the sentence in French, in order to avoid the double meaning, answers equally well in English, I shall here literally translate it. On the first supposition, "Lisias, speaking of his friends, promised to his father never to abandon them." On the second supposition, "Lisias, speaking of his father's friends, promised to his father never to abandon them5." It is easy to conceive that in numberless instances, the pronoun he will, in like manner, be ambiguous when two or more males happen to be mentioned in the same clause of a sentence. In such a case, we ought always either to give another turn to the expression, or to use the noun itself, and not the pronoun; for when the repetition of a word is necessary, it is not offensive. The translators of the Bible have often judiciously used this method; I say judiciously, because, though the other method be on some occasions preferable, yet, by attempting the other, they would have run a much greater risk of destroying that beautiful simplicity, which is an eminent characteristic of the language of holy writ. I shall take an instance from the speech " 5 I even think, that the turn of the sentence is easier in English than in French : Lisias, parlant des amis de son père à son père même, lui promit de ne les abandonner jamais." It may be thought that, on the first supposition there is a shorter way of removing the doubt. Ses propres amis in French, and his own friends in English, would effectually answer the end. But let it be observed, that the introduction of this appropriating term hath an exclusive appearance with regard to others, that might be very unsuitable. I observe further, that the distinction in English between his and her precludes several ambiguities that affect most other European tongues. Suppose the promise had been made to the mother instead of the father, the simple enunciation of it would be equally ambiguous in French, as in the other case. "Lisias promit à sa mère de n'abandonner jamais ses amis," is their expression, whether they be his friends or hers, of whom he speaks. If it were a daughter to her father, the case would be the same with them, but different with us. I may remark here, by the way, how much more this small distinction in regard to the antecedent conduces to perspicuity, than the distinctions of gender and number in regard to the nouns with which they are joined. As to this last connexion, the place of the pronoun always ascertains it, so that, for this purpose at least, the change of termination is superfluous. of Judah to his brother Joseph in Egypt: "We said to my lord, the lad cannot leave his father; for if he should leave his father, his father would die." The words his father are in this short verse thrice repeated, and yet are not disagreeable, as they contribute to perspicuity. Had the last part of the sentence run thus, "If he should leave his father, he would die," it would not have appeared from the expression, whether it was the child or the parent that would die. Some have imagined that the pronoun ought always regularly to refer to the nearest preceding noun of the same gender and number. But this notion is founded in a mistake, and doth not suit the idiom of any language ancient or modern. From the rank that some words maintain in the sentence, if I may be allowed that expression, a reader will have a natural tendency to consider the pronoun as referring to them, without regard to their situation. In support of this observation, I shall produce two examples. The first shall be of the neuter singular of the third personal pronoun: "But I shall leave this, subject to your management, and question not but you will throw it into such light, as shall at once improve and entertain your reader." There is no ambiguity here, nor would it, on the most cursory reading, enter into the head of any person of common sense, that the pronoun it relates to management, which is nearer, and not to subject, which is more remote. Nor is it the sense only that directs us in this preference. There is another principle by which we are influenced. The accusative of the active verb is one chief object of attention in a sentence; the regimen of that accusative hath but a secondary value; it is regarded only as explanatory of the former, or at most as an appendage to it. This consideration doth not affect those only who understand grammar, but all who understand the language. The different parts of speech, through the power of custom, produce their effect on those who are ignorant of their very names, as much as on the grammarian himself; though it is the grammarian alone who can give a rational account of these effects. The other example I promised to give, shall be of the masculine of the same number and person, in the noted complaint of Cardinal Wolsey immediately after his disgrace: Had I but serv'd my God, with half the zeal Here, though the word king is adjoining, and the word God at some distance, the pronoun he cannot so regularly refer to that noun as to this. The reason is, the whole of the second clause beginning with these words, "with half the zeal," main7 Spect. No. 628. 8 Shakspeare. Henry VIII. Gen. xliv. 22. |