to must necessarily be understood between them and the pronouns, as it is between the preceding verbs and the pronouns him and her. But, in fact, "You have given him more than I," is perfectly good English; the last clause of which plainly means—"more than I have given him." And, "You have sent her as much as he," will of course be understood to mean—"as much as he has sent her;" but here, because the auxiliary implied is different from the one expressed, it might have been as well to have inserted it: thus, "You have sent her as much as he has." "She reviles you as much as he," is also good English, though found, with the foregoing, among Buchanan's examples of "false syntax."
OBS. 20.—Murray's twentieth Rule of syntax avers, that, "When the qualities of different things are compared, the latter noun or pronoun is not governed by the conjunction than or as, but agrees with the verb," &c.—Octavo Gram., p. 214; Russell's Gram., 103; Bacon's, 51; Alger's, 71; Smith's, 179; Fisk's, 138. To this rule, the great Compiler and most of his followers say, that than whom "is an exception." or "seems to form an exception;" to which they add, that, "the phrase is, however, avoided by the best modern writers."—Murray, i, 215. This latter assertion Russell conceives to be untrue: the former he adopts; and, calling than whom "an exception to the general rule," says of it, (with no great consistency,) "Here the conjunction than has certainly the force of a preposition, and supplies its place by governing the relative."—Russell's Abridgement of Murray's Gram., p. 104. But this is hardly an instance to which one would apply the maxim elsewhere adopted by Murray: "Exceptio probat regulam."—Octavo Gram., p. 205. To ascribe to a conjunction the governing power of a preposition, is a very wide step, and quite too much like straddling the line which separates these parts of speech one from the other.
OBS. 21.—Churchill says, "If there be no ellipsis to supply, as sometimes happens when a pronoun relative occurs after than; the relative is to be put in the objective case absolute: as, 'Alfred, than whom a greater king never reigned, deserves to be held up as a model to all future sovereigns.'"—New Gram., p. 153. Among his Notes, he has one with reference to this "objective case absolute," as follows: "It is not governed by the conjunction, for on no other occasion does a conjunction govern any case; or by any word understood, for we can insert no word, or words, that will reconcile the phrase with any other rule of grammar: and if we employ a pronoun personal instead of the relative, as he, which will admit of being resolved elliptically, it must be put in the nominative case."—Ib., p. 352. Against this gentleman's doctrine, one may very well argue, as he himself does against that of Murray, Russell, and others; that on no other occasion do we speak of putting "the objective case absolute;" and if, agreeably to the analogy of our own tongue, our distinguished authors would condescend to say than who,[436] surely nobody would think of calling this an instance of the nominative case absolute,—except perhaps one swaggering new theorist, that most pedantic of all scoffers, Oliver B. Peirce.
OBS. 22.—The sum of the matter is this: the phrase, than who, is a more regular and more analogical expression than than whom; but both are of questionable propriety, and the former is seldom if ever found, except in some few grammars; while the latter, which is in some sort a Latinism, may be quoted from many of our most distinguished writers. And, since that which is irregular cannot be parsed by rule, if out of respect to authority we judge it allowable, it must be set down among the figures of grammar; which are, all of them, intentional deviations from the ordinary use of words. One late author treats the point pretty well, in this short hint: "After the conjunction than, contrary to analogy, whom is used in stead of who."—Nutting's Gram., p. 106. An other gives his opinion in the following note: "When who immediately follows than, it is used improperly in the objective case; as, 'Alfred, than whom a greater king never reigned;'—than whom is not grammatical. It ought to be, than who; because who is the nominative to was understood.—Than whom is as bad a phrase as 'he is taller than him.' It is true that some of our best writers have used than whom; but it is also true, that they have used other phrases which we have rejected as ungrammatical; then why not reject this too?"—Lennie's Grammar, Edition of 1830, p. 105.
OBS. 23.—On this point. Bullions and Brace, two American copyists and plagiarists of Lennie, adopt opposite notions. The latter copies the foregoing note, without the last sentence; that is, without admitting that "than whom" has ever been used by good writers. See Brace's Gram., p. 90. The former says, "The relative usually follows than in the objective case, even when the nominative goes before; as, 'Alfred, than whom a greater king never reigned.' This anomaly it is difficult to explain. Most probably, than, at first had the force of a preposition, which it now retains only when followed by the relative."—Bullions, E. Gram., of 1843, p. 112. Again: "A relative after than is put in the objective case; as, 'Satan, than whom none higher sat.' This anomaly has not been satisfactorily explained. In this case, some regard than as a preposition. It is probably only a case of simple enallagé"—Bullions, Analyt. and Pract. Gram., of 1849, p. 191. Prof. Fowler, in his great publication, of 1850, says of this example, "The expression should be, Satan, than who None higher sat."—Fowler's E. Gram., §482, Note 2. Thus, by one single form of antiptosis, have our grammarians been as much divided and perplexed, as were the Latin grammarians by a vast number of such changes; and, since there were some among the latter, who insisted on a total rejection of the figure, there is no great presumption in discarding, if we please, the very little that remains of it in English.
