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.