RELATIVES AND VANDALS

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 54, 5 March 1927, Page 29

RELATIVES AND VANDALS

(By "Ajax.")

t Mr.. H. W. Fowler begins the article the word "w-hieh" in his "Diction>ary of Modern Usage" with the remark tliat'- ' ■ ■ " ■ T ./relative pronouns are as trouble- . -'sffme to the inexpert but conscientious writer as they are useful to everyone, which is saying much.. 'And.he proceeds, to'write a twelyepagejwticle on-the subject which is distinguished by his usual acumen," lucidity, and wealth of illustration. To me perhaps the. most, interesting point in the article is. the evidence thata writer of _. Lord: Morley 's eminence should have' come; -to the conclusion at the very end of his career that he had insufficiently mastered the distinction between "which" and "that," and that 'he hired labour to eradicate the superfluous "winches" just ; as he might have hired it to weed his. garde^i. Mr. Fowler quotes Miss Hilda Fried-richs-as writing in the "Westminster Gazette" (3rd October, 1923) as folloVs; — •■.-.•■

"In 1920 Messrs. Maemillan published "a. new''edition of Lord Morley's works. ;.>>,.. Ke.was determined to make it a "''carefully Revised' .edition, and made oiie-or 'two attempts at -revising, it himself.'. . .-He then asked me whether I would care to help him, and ..explained what my part of the' work' -would be. It. sounded rather dull, for ;he was particularly keen on haying the 'which,', wherever there .was a '^possibility, exchanged for 'that.' . . . -He was always ready and very willing V.to go with me through the notes I had /jotted down, while going through a book ■page by page, 'which' hunting and Ilooking*out for other errors."

:•-■ Wiat Lord Morley's motive was iMiss Friedrichs does not appear to :nave said. Had he neglected the rule :rstated by Mr..Fowler that " 'which' is appropriate to non-defining and 'that' • jto defining clauses"? or was it merely ■ for the sake of what Mr. Fowler calls ■-"elegant variation"? or for euphony? iMuch of Tennyson's revision was ininspired by the desire to "turn all the ; sibilants out of the book," and he turned more valuable things vjput at the same time. In the fine pas-7-sage which particularly concerns New • i Zealand—

~i '■ By the long wash of Australasian C .■ seas ■;■. • , :

Far off, and holds her heads to other stars, ; ' ' . '. . And breathes in converse seasons—

the sibilants of the first line have been retained, perhaps as appropriate to the swistfi of the sea, but in the third line .'.'April autumns" makes a weak substitute for "converse seasons." In another line occurs to me— ,'

She saw the snowy poles of moonless Mars— "'. ■' ■:. ' ;■ ;'.*

■where every word except the 'particles' h>s a hiss in it, it is odd that, after the change dictated . by '"astronomical discovery, Tennyson ■retained that-re-markable characteristic unabated—V •

JShe saw the snowy poles and moons •; of Mars. ■ '■•'■

But this by the way, for it is not'clear th,at euphony had anything to do with Morley's revision. ; ■■''■- : . •

'My reason-": for- consulting ■• Mr. Fowler's article was to . see-whether with his genius for classification he ha.d any. place for the delightful use of/the double relative in the following sentences from the \ Hollywood, ."Film Mercury ■":•—

-The recent destruction of the old Century plant, which will never bloom again, furnished material for th.c : opportunists, of Hollywood, than which there is no town more plentifully endowed with which.

the comment of "Observator," to ■whjbse "At Random" column in the "Observer'? I owe .the 'quotation, is 'perhaps sufficient: "Now we know who writes the caption's of the jilms." I certainly got" no' light from! Mr. Fowler, and probably had no right to expect it. a freak of genius may well defy classification. But the principle;of "Elegant Variation,' about which Mr. FoMer has a good deal to say, both iii regard to the relative pronouns and otherwise, suggests assort 6f converse principle which may meet the case. "Elegant Variation/.? he says, "is-'the resort of the writers, mostly "the minor novelists and the re: porters" who believe that the same word should never be used twice in a sentence or within Some slightly larger limit.

The second temptation (Mr. • Fowler writes) is to regard "that" Slid "which" as two words that are simply equivalent and (the.yariationist would say "and which") exist ; only to relieve each other when either .'is tired. ' ( One of Mr. Fowler's examples is the 'following:— He provides a philosophy which disparages the intellect and that forms a handy b skground for all kinds of irrational beliefs (omit Vthat"). | 'As an example from good literature Mr. f Fowler might have cited Matthew xxii., 21— '. Render therefore unto Caesar the .things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that,are God's. . This .-"elegant \ariatioii" of the relative is not reproduced in the parallel passages of other Syrioptists, an.d the Revisers, have properly struck it out here. The opposite of "Elegant Variation" is "Inelegant Assimilation," and this may possibly bo the o. pla. .- tion v of that masterly double relative from the »'Film Mercury"— " Material ;r the opportunitiet of Hollywood, /than which there is no ' £own more plentifully endowed with which. As! the seconn relative apparently has "opportunities" for its antecedent, it should of course been "whom," but the beautiful assurance of the two "whiehes would then have been missedj" May tho "Film Mercury" continue to gladde the hearts of the grammarians, than which thero is no class moie plentifully endowed with which!.

In the same article "Observer" calls attention to a literary marvel which he suggests may-bo entitled to priority over the best of the scientific marvels of the age:— Television and telephony and wireless are all very wonderful; but I am iiot- sure that our grandfathers would not have been even more surprised to learn that in 1927 the Tynemouth Libraries Committee were forced to jut the Oxford Dictionary under lock and key,' owing to the popular enthusiasm for that work. It -;would be a glorious example of what the newspaper and the cinema and free education have done for popular culture if the peopl of Tynemouth had really been stampeded by a tasto for learning into a wild rush for the con-

sultation of th Oxford Dictionary. But the fact doubtless is that not culture but vandalism has inspired the competition for the book.and put it in.peril of its' life. All over the Englishspeaking world the cross-word puzzle and word building mania has recently brought a new terror to ■ libraries. The great works of reference have, been raided by hordes of ignorant and barbarous prize-hunt-ers. Their 1- thirst'"for knowledge stands on no higher level than that of the man who wants to.knov which horse L= going to win, and they leave their marks b'elund, them like the tripper • ".vho destroys the flowers and ferns and leaves his c-isgusting litter in their place.

I have often seen these creatures at work in our Public Library, not studying but hunting and hurrying on. Some ot them, however, j.ot so fast that they cannot afford a lick of the fingers for every page- -an abominable bit against'which it is good to see that a warning has recently been pasted on an the magazine-covers. Why should such a book as the Oxford Dictionary be prostituted to the purposes of a vulgar vandalism from which it uuy sufthLrSo, 111 the C°UrSe Of a*™ ™eks nandl£T mrTl yearS Of reasonable handling? If the cross-word puzzle craze^ revives, or is followed by any .destructive successor, the p" tective measures already . adopted in IZ° Ot tt"3*^ «»d American Libraries, will, have to. be imitated.here

From the same page' of the "Obin^'Jv^ °ne °f''those tiaypoZ tLpora^l^ 3 t0 aU its --