Again the mere fact stated, that "A. met B.," in itself implies A.'s recognition of B.; so that we are again led to the same conclusion that the first Pronoun-" he ”– refers to A., and the second-"him "-to B.

But rapidly as mental processes like these are gone through, it is far better to render them unnecessary; thus saving the reader all needless mental effort. This end

is at once effected by writing

“A. met B. in town, and B. recognized him at once."

§ 24. Besides ambiguity, the too frequent repetition of such words as he, she, it, they, has often a vulgarizing effect, as will be observed in some of the examples given below. Here is a conspicuous instance of the kind of abuse of Pronouns now under consideration :

:

"The grand jury found true bills against them [O'Connell and his associates]; and although they threw every obstacle in the way of the proceedings, they were successfully carried through." (Alison, Continuation of Hist., chap. xxiii.)

66

Here it takes thought to see that in the second member of the sentence--" they threw every obstacle in the way,' &c. there is a change of subject, and that the word they" refers not to the "Grand Jury," but either to the accused persons, O'Connell, &c., or to their supporters: and again, it takes time to decide whether it is the members of the Grand Jury, or the bills, or Messrs. O'Connell & Co., or, finally the proceedings, that were "carried through. Further, the general effect is like that of listening to the talk of an imperfectly educated person. There is neither the charm of accuracy, nor of elegant ease. To read well, the sentence would need to be entirely recast: but it may be much improved by substituting the real subject for the pronoun "they" in its two latter members:—

"The grand jury found true bills against O'Connell and his associates; and although the accused persons threw every obstacle in the way, the proceedings were successfully carried through" [by which the writer means that a verdict of "Guilty" was obtained].

ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES FOR CRITICISM.

"Some delay was caused by a collision which took place between the Duke of Wellington, the largest ship in the fleet, and an American emigrant ship, obliging the admiral to transfer his flag from her to another ship, and to send her back to Glasgow for repairs." (Molesworth, H. E. iii. 53.)

[Besides the faulty use of the Pronoun her there is here an inelegant repetition of the word "ship." Read

"Some delay was caused by a collision between the Duke of Wellington, the largest ship in the fleet, and an American emigrant vessel, obliging the admiral to transfer his flag to another ship and send the Duke of Wellington back to Glasgow for repairs."]

"From this time she brooded over plans for the extermination of a sect who could argue so well and fight so bravely, and in the meantime gave them some delusive privileges, which irritated their opponents and dissatisfied them." (White, Hist. Fr. p. 254.)

[Here the fault is less glaring than in the preceding instances but all possibility of misconception or hesitation as to the meaning would be removed, by bringing the Pronoun closer to its antecedent, thus:

"... she gave them some delusive privileges, which, while they failed to satisfy them, irritated their opponents.”]

In the following example, a ludicrous effect is produced :

"At the lower end of the hall is a large otter's skin stuffed with hay which his [Sir Roger's] mother ordered to be hung up in that manner, and the knight looks upon it with great satisfaction, because it seems he was but nine years old when his dog killed him." (Addison, Spectator, No. 115.)

[Who was nine years old? the knight or the otter? And who was killed, and by whom? Only our knowledge that Sir Roger is represented as still alive, keeps us from supposing that it was he himself who was killed at the age of nine. To clear it of ambiguity, the latter part of the sentence may be recast as follows:

“.. the knight looks upon it with great satisfaction, because, it seems, the otter was killed by his own dog when he was but nine years old."

The elegant négligé of the Spectator papers is here carried to an excess bordering on affectation.]

The following example from the English Bible shows how a grotesque effect may be caused by the same fault even in the most solemn passage:

"And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the Lord went out and smote in the camp of the Assyrians one hundred fourscore and five thousand and, when they arose early in the morning, behold they were all dead corpses." (2 Kings xix. 35.)

§ 25. Sometimes we find a Pronoun carelessly used without any Noun at all expressed to which it can have reference. The following may serve as an extreme example :

"A complaint called the tegretier which is not so frequent among men as women [viz. in Abyssinia] is for a certainty very surprising.

It is very common among them [query, whom? men-women -or the Abyssinians generally ?]: and when I have been told in what manner they [query again, who? but the writer appears to mean, patients suffering from the said disease] acted, I would never believe it." (Percy, Anecd. ii. 34.)

The student cannot fail to mark the wholly rude and vulgar style of this brief extract; which is from the pen of an ordinary English sailor. But though such extreme carelessness as this is rarely to be met with, the same fault in a less gross form is one of the commonest. Take the following example:

"Some of the ringleaders having been apprehended by the magistrates and put in jail, it was forthwith attacked, the doors forced, and the whole prisoners [say, the whole of the prisoners] liberated." (Alison, ch. xxiii.)

Here the words "put in jail" form a sort of compound verbal phrase, and the noun jail does not stand out with sufficient independence to mark it as the antecedent to the Pronoun "it." It would be better to say

"Some of the ringleaders having been apprehended by the magistrates and imprisoned, the jail was forthwith attacked," &c.

§ 26. The Pronoun they is particularly liable to be used loosely, as in the following example (the writer is speaking of an attempted change in the constitution of the House of Lords):

"The number of law-lords was too small, and many of them were superannuated, so that there was often difficulty in obtaining a sufficient attendance; and even when they did attend, the appeal frequently was from a more competent to a less competent court." (Moles. H. E. iii. 73.)

The opening of the sentence is bad; since if the "number of law-lords" was so "small," it is obviously inconsistent to speak of a mere fraction of them as "many.' But there is worse to come. The pronoun "they" really has no proper antecedent at all. It cannot well refer to the whole body of "law-lords," since so large a proportion of them are said to have been "superannuated." It must apparently be

taken in a loose way, as meaning any considerable number of them what has just been designated "a sufficient attendance." The sentence may be reconstructed thus:

"The number of law-lords was too small, and some even of these were superannuated, so that there was often difficulty in obtaining a sufficient attendance; and even when this was secured, the appeal frequently was from a more competent to a less competent court."

The following passage is open to the same criticism:"Out of 9,400 persons holding cures of souls in various forms, less than 200 refused to the last to comply with the statute, and resigned their livings. But several years passed before they could all be sworn. They evaded the visitation or protected themselves in the house, or behind the authority, of some Catholic neighbour. They absented themselves," &c. (Froude, H. E. vii. 89.)

§ 27. The use of the pronoun "it" is also frequently marked by the same laxity. The subject present to the writer's mind at the beginning of a sentence has perhaps given place to another, without his being aware of the change, and the pronoun consequently refers to a different noun from that which has been actually expressed. This seems to be the case in the following example:

"Old English poetry was also different then from what it is now. It was not written in rime, nor were its syllables counted." (Primer of E. Lit. p. 9.)

Old English poetry "is now" what it "was," so far as it exists in its fragmentary remains. What is meant of course is, that old English poetry is very different from modern English poetry. The above is a good illustration how even an elegant writer may unawares slide into inaccuracy.

The same criticism applies to the following passage from the same writer :

"With Aelfred's literary work, learning changed its seat from the north to the south. But he made it [i.e. learning] by his writings an English not a Latin literature.” (Ib. p. 17.)

66

"Learning" and "a literature" are not identical. Hence the use of the pronoun "it" is here inaccurate. It is possible that the pronoun may be used by anticipation for the noun "literature," which follows (see page 63): but, if so, the inversion is to say the least unnecessary. The sentence might be reconstructed thus:

"With Aelfred's literary work learning changed its seat from the north to the south. But by his writings he made our literature English and not Latin."

The following is a more conspicuous instance of the same fault:

"In the courage and heroism of the Sarmatian race is to be found the real and the only effective barrier against the encroachments of the Muscovite in their indelible feeling of nationality, the provision made by Providence for its resurrection like the phoenix from its ashes." (Alison, ch. xxvi.)

§ 28. Sometimes, when the same person needs to be mentioned again and again, in the same context,-to prevent ambiguity and, at the same time, avoid unpleasant repetition-a new designation may be employed. This, however, requires judgment and good taste; otherwise the effect is apt to be stilted and unpleasant, and sometimes positive confusion is caused.* It is desirable that when a synonym is employed, there should be some appropriateness about it in reference to the place where it is introduced. The use of such synonyms in speaking of a sovereign-as, "that prince," "that monarch," has often a very frigid sound. The following passages may serve to show how one of the greatest modern masters of style has overcome this difficulty:

He

"The sentiments of Cromwell were widely different. wished to restore, in all essentials, that ancient constitution which the majority of the people had always loved, and for which they now pined. The course afterwards taken by Monk was not open to Cromwell. The memory of one terrible day separated the great regicide for ever from the House of Stuart..

"His plan bore, from the first, a considerable resemblance to the old English constitution. . . The title of King was not revived: but the kingly prerogatives were entrusted to a Lord High Protector. The sovereign was called not His Majesty, but His Highness. . A House of Commons was a necessary part of the new polity. In constituting this body, the Protector showed a wisdom and a public spirit which were not duly appreciated by his contemporaries. The vices of the old representative system, though by no means so serious as they afterwards became, had already been remarked by farsighted men. Cromwell reformed that system on the same principles on which Mr. Pitt, a hundred and thirty years later, attempted to reform it, and on which it was at length reformed in our own time.

The writer has just noted the following passage in a delightful book recently published, which may serve to illustrate this:

"It seems that some absolutely false accusation brought against Lord Kinnedder, of an intrigue with a young lady with whom he had been thus philandering, broke poor Erskine's heart [i.e. broke Lord Kinnedder's heart], during his first year as a Judge." (Hutton, Scott, p. 63.)

E