parenthesis; it is not common to use SO as an adverb of intensity without as' to follow.

'But he trusted there was not a wretch so base and meanspirited to be found in the kingdom, who would accept them upon the conditions on which they must be offered'. (Swift.) 'But he trusted there was not to be found in the kingdom a wretch so base and mean-spirited as to accept them on the conditions that they must be offered on'; or simply 'the conditions that must be offered'. About the time of Elizabeth, this construction-the relative preceded by ‘so ’—was very far from uncommon; Shakespeare has it frequently: 'But no perfection is so absolute,

That some impurity doth not pollute'.

Mätzner mentions that the adjective clause sometimes appears in the place of a clause (adverbial) with 'that' or 'as' with infinitive: so sanguine that he did not apprehend' or 'so sanguine as not to apprehend'. After giving two examples, the one we have just quoted from Scott, and one from Swift like the foregoing, he remarks that Recent Grammarians take offence at this kind of sentence' ('Neuere Grammatiker nehmen an Satzen dieser Art . . . Anstosz'). But, he goes on to say, this construction was in earlier authors ('früher '), after a negative, or after a question (as Scott's example), a favourite form of expression (eine beliebte Ausdrucksweise '). And he quotes plentifully from Chaucer, Layamon, &c. He does not give any example from Elizabethan times, or indeed mention them; yet, in this period, the usage is continuously kept up.

'The energy and exaltation of character (which) 'that' revolutions call forth are paid for in the lassitude, the depression, the political infidelity, (which) ' that' ensue.

'The faculties which are necessary for the conduct of important business ripened in him at a time of life when they have scarcely begun to blossom in ordinary men'. Better 'the faculties (that are) necessary'. 'When' is very elegantly substituted for at which'; or for 'that

at'.

men

The last would be intolerable, owing to the great

distance between the relative and the preposition. In such statements of time, the preposition is often omitted.

'The scene had quite changed in the half-hour that Adam had been in the garden. At the end of all we should expect a preposition, to go along with 'that'; say 'in' or during'. That the separated preposition should drop off is not unnatural. 'During which' for 'that' would be heavy and unidiomatic.

The time that Britain remained a Roman province was between three and four hundred years.' A similar explanation applies here.

An example already quoted illustrates the omission of the preposition: The Welsh did not keep Easter on the same day that the rest of the Western Churches did' (kept Easter on).

When the meaning is not time, the omission is less comThe following is a poetical example :

mon.

'A perfect judge will read each work of wit

With the same spirit that its author writ' [with].

The sense is restrictive, and with which' is not desirable. 'Wherewith', an old adverbial form, is not now in frequent

use.

'Here is a pair of propositions (which) 'that' can never be asserted of the same instance, (and of which)' while yet in many instances neither can apply'. These are subordinate clauses qualifying the principal; the second relative being governed by 'of' cannot be converted to 'that'; but the conjunction while yet' not merely serves to unite the second clause with the first, but indicates the mode of connection, that being more than simple cumulation by 'and'. 'But he can only hope to attain this by lowering his pattern to (that pitch in which) the point where' the spectators are capable of going along with him.' ['Only' should be placed before 'by lowering.']

'We shall briefly run over the events which attended the conquest made by that empire'. 'The events attending the

conquest'-using the participle: or, still more simply, 'the events of the conquest'.

In these classes of things, which are those with which Probability is concerned, the fundamental conception which the reader has to fix in his mind as clearly as possible, is, I take it, that of a series'. The first 'which' is right; the others, besides being brought in for restriction, crowd the sentence with too many whiches. In these classes of things, being those that Probability is concerned with, the fundamental conception to be fixed in the reader's mind as clearly as possible, is (that of) a series'.

In continuation, the author writes: 'But it is a series of a particular kind, one of which I can see no better compendious description than (that which) 'what' is given by the statement that it combines individual irregularity with aggregate regularity'. Or-'But it is a series of a particular kind; and I cannot compendiously describe it better than by saying that in it the individuals are irregular and the aggregate regular'.

'In the Solar System, an assemblage of bodies, each (of which has)‘having' its simple and regular motions that severally alternate between two extremes, and the whole (of which has) 'having' its involved perturbations that now increase and now decrease, is presented to us.' Change the order and say, 'In the Solar System is presented to us an assemblage of bodies.'

'There is no better test of a weak understanding than the facility with which it is taken in by a truism'; 'than its being easily taken in by a truism'.

'That' is disadvantageous chiefly when there is a preposition. Our idiom allows the preposition to be separated by a considerable interval from the relative: 'unconsidered rivulets (which) 'that' the neighbouring rustics do not even know the names of' (Helps). The chief objection made to this form is the want of melody, but an alternative always be found when the abruptness is serious. says—' great virtues often save, and always illust

age and nation in which they appear'; 'the age and nation that they appear in', would be harsh the best substitute is wherein they appear', which adds to the melody.

It has already been seen (p. 78) that the preposition at the end of a relative clause is frequently dropt; the chief cases, in prose, being where the preposition and the relative join to make up a phrase of time.

6

That' applies to both persons and things, and hence may be somewhat ambiguous when the antecedent does not express which is meant. This is the case with such antecedents as 'one' and 'all'. Now who' decides at once for persons, and which' for things. There may be a balance against employing that' in such instances. Any one who never

made a blunder'.

It can never be necessary to use he who, the man who, for restriction. 'Happy the man (who) that sees'. 'To a man (who) 'that' has no capital, (who) 'that' has laid by nothing.' In the following sentence there is a seeming advantage in 'who': 'There are many millions in India who would be utterly unable to pay a fine of fifty rupees; there are hundreds of thousands from whom such a fine might be levied, but whom it would reduce to extreme distress; there are thousands to whom it would give very little uneasiness; there are hundreds to whom it would be a matter of perfect indifference, and who not cross a room to avoid it'. Yet, probably the passage would be improved by so changing it as to admit of the correct restrictive. 'In India, there are many millions of persons that could not possibly pay a fine of fifty rupees [for strong negation, 'not' is preferable to the prefix 'un' combined with an adjective]; there are hundreds of thousands of persons that such a fine might be levied from, but that would be reduced by it to extreme distress; there are thousands that would suffer from it very little uneasiness; there are hundreds that would not cross a room to avoid it' [omit the clause it would be a matter of perfect indifference' as a weaker form of what comes after].

When the first of two or more co-ordinate adjective clauses is introduced by 'whose', there might be awkwardness in using that' to introduce the second. But even then the structure might be re-arranged so as to restore the proper relative everywhere.

'It has been affirmed that the pedigree of Hastings can be traced back to the great Danish sea-king whose sails were long the terror of both coasts of the British Channel, and who, after many fierce and doubtful struggles, yielded at last to the valour and genius of Alfred'. 'Whose' can hardly be interfered with successfully; but who' may be assimilated by some such substitution as 'whose determined spirit'.

'We cannot say that we much admire the big man whose sword is dug up in one quarter of the globe, whose helmet drops from the clouds in another, and who, after clattering and rustling for some days, ends by kicking the house down'.

'Horace Walpole spoke of himself as of a man whose equanimity was proof to ambitious hopes and fear, who had learned to rate power, wealth, and fame, at their true value, and whom the conflict of parties, the rise and fall of statesmen, the ebb and flow of public opinion, moved only to a smile of mingled compassion and disdain'.

Again, that' cannot take the place of 'who' when the antecedent is suppressed.

Who drives fat oxen should himself be fat.'

Who reasons wisely is not therefore wise.

'Who steals my purse steels trash;

But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him

And makes me poor indeed. '

Nor can

'that' be used in the similar case where the relative clause precedes the formally expressed antecedent. 'Whom, therefore, ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.'

'Who cover faults, at last shame them derides.'