sessive, and can stand in the nominative and in the objective case.

My very self was yours.-Otway. Till Glory's self is twilight.— Byron. Orpheus' self may heave his head.-Milton. To thine own self be true.-Shakespeare.

And perhaps one's self is more commonly used now than oneself.

When self united with the pronoun, it was mainly (1) to make with it a reflexive, or (2) for the sake of emphasis. But the compound could stand alone as nominative.

Thyself shall see the act.-Shakespeare. Myself am hell.-Milton. And this use of self, never very common and almost abandoned, is creeping into favor again, it is thought. There can be no doubt that usage is overwhelmingly in favor of the simple personal pronouns as subject, and restricts the compound with self to the function (1) of emphasis, as in, You yourself shall go; and (2) to that of a reflexive, as in, He made himself useful. We have seen that, at least in poetry, the simple pronoun, after verbs used transitively, takes upon itself this reflexive office; and after certain prepositions, also, upon, about, around, etc., we employ the simple pronoun; but after others, to, by, for, etc., we use the compound.

The young prince promised to take upon him the obligations.--Scott. My uncle stopped a minute to look about him.-Dickens. It is disputed what aim a translator should propose to himself.-Matthew Arnold. He claimed to decide for himself.—New-York Tribune.

XXI. The Interrogative Pronouns. Our interrogatives, who, which, and what, in all their forms, are Anglo-Saxon interrogatives; and even our why is traceable to the same parentage. But, as has been said, our wh is Anglo-Saxon

Our interrogative whose and whom are restricted to persons, but the corresponding Anglo-Saxon forms could be used when mere things were asked about. Our which is a compound of hwi (what) and lic (like), and is an adjective, as well as an interrogative pronoun. Whether, now a conjunction, is an Anglo-Saxon interrogative from hwa (who) and the comparative suffix ther. It came into English with its two functions of adjective and interrogative pronouns, as may be seen in,

Whether is greater the gift or the altar.-Matt. xxiii. 19. Unsure to whether side it would incline.-Spenser.

In the seventeenth century, which took the place of whether in both these offices.

In the Elizabethan period there was much confusion respecting the case-forms of the interrogative who, as there was respecting those of the personal and demonstrative pronouns. Who often stood where now we should place whom.

Who hath he left behind him general ?-King Lear, IV. 3, 6. Who does the wolf love ?-Coriol. II. 1, 8. With who?-Oth. IV. 2, 99. Το who?-Cymb. IV. 2, 75. Who have we here ?- Winter's Tale, IV. 3,

636.

It is not always easy, even now, to keep the right forms of the interrogatives. How common such questions as, Who did you find there? Who did he marry? How easily even Hawthorne glides into, And who do you think I saw standing on deck?

XXII. The Relative Pronouns.-In Anglo-Saxon a real relative pronoun was wanting. To express the subordinacy of an accessory clause the language used the indeclinable pe (1) alone or (2) in conjunction with the demonstrative se, sẽo, pæt, or (3) in connection with the personal pronoun.

1. That. The office of the relative was first assumed in

English by that, the neuter of the old Anglo-Saxon demonstrative se, sẽo, pat. This is in general use to-day, relating to nouns or pronouns of any gender, person, or case, in either number. Being the oldest relative, the author of the Humble Petition of Who and Which was infelicitous in his choice of a verb when he makes these two pronouns say, "We . . . kept up our dignity and honor many years, till the JackSprat that supplanted us."

2. Which and Who.-Very soon after the Conquest the interrogative which was employed as a relative to aid that, and, like that, related to nouns denoting persons as well as to those naming things. The interrogative who was metamorphosed into a relative somewhat later. The transition of these interrogatives to relatives was easy. We might, after Abbott and Whitney, illustrate the transfer thus: Who steals my purse? He steals trash = He who steals my purse steals trash. Which barked? I see the dog I see the dog which barked.

The relative which, like the interrogative, is used as an adjective. When so used, the noun that which modifies is repeated exactly or in substance from the preceding clause. The repetition gives definiteness, and prevents doubt as to the reference.

If she did play false the fault was hers, which fault lies, etc.-King John, I. 1, 119. She took the opportunity of . . going to Bath; for which place she set out.-Fielding. Ennius writes in regard to Homer; of which poet he was, etc.—Lounsbury.

Used as an adjective or as a pronoun, which is frequently preceded by the. Compare the French lequel.

There he espied his roll, the which he with trembling and haste catched up.-Bunyan. Let gentleness my strong enforcement be, in the which hope I blush.-As You Like It, II. 7, 19. The better part

of valor is discretion; in the which better part I have saved my life. -1. Hen. IV. V. 4, 125.

Which was sometimes followed by that.

A daughter which that was called Sophie.-Chaucer.

But oftener than otherwise, which has long been, and still is, used without the before it, without that following it, and without the antecedent, repeated precisely or in substance, after it.

3. Who, What, That, and Which Distinguished.— At first, who, which, and that related (1) to words denoting mere animals and things, and (2) to words denoting persons. But later, which dislodged who from the first position, and who and that drove which from the second. This displacement began in the seventeenth century, and is now complete. That performs both offices, though it cannot do either after a preposition—we cannot say, There is the boy or the book for that I am looking. The objective whom has followed the example of who; and whose, as the possessive of who, also refers to persons.

What (hwæt) is the neuter of who (hwa), and is used only when things are spoken of. When used in the nominative and in the objective, it is now never preceded by an antecedent, and seldom has one following it. We can say, What man dares that I dare; but we should usually say, What man dares I dare. Of whose, the possessive of what, and meaning of which, Professor Meiklejohn concedes but half the truth in saying that it "may be used"; and Mason is wholly wrong in claiming that it is rarely employed except in poetry." In our special study of authors (all prose), to which reference has been made, we have found it hundreds of times-frequently twenty-five or thirty times in three hundred pages.

66

The relative that is nearly always restrictive; that is, it introduces some characteristic needed to make the thing definite, which, while adding to the meaning, narrows the scope of the antecedent.

All that I have, and all that I am, and all that I hope in this life, I am now ready here to stake upon it.- Webster. In 1685, Louis XIV. signed the ordinance that revoked the Edict of Nantes.-Green, J. R.

Who and which are often unrestrictive, but not always So. In this office they introduce a circumstance additional, not needed to define the thing, and not limiting the antecedent, and have the meaning of and he, and she, and it, or and they.

Manslaughter, which is the meaning of the one, is the same as man's laughter, which is the end of the other.-Holmes. Charles II., who never said a foolish thing, gave the English climate the highest praise. -Lowell.

But who and which introduce restrictive clauses as well, and so share with that the function just assigned it.

Writers who have no present are pretty sure of having no future.Lowell. An artist is bound to give due weight to the motives which would claim authority over him in other acts of life.-Hutton.

This wide use of who and which in restrictive clauses is not accounted for by saying that they occur after this, these, those, and even that, and hence are used to avoid the disagreeable repetition of sound which that after these words would cause. This may frequently be the reason for the employment of who and which in restrictive clauses; but our collected instances enable us to affirm (1) that who and which stand in such clauses oftener without than with those pronouns preceding them, and (2) that they so stand oftener than that itself. Especially is this true of which.