case, is almost always inelegant; as, “This is the worst thing [that] could happen.”—­“There were several things [which] brought it upon me.”—­Pilgrim’s Progress, p. 162.  The latter ellipsis may occur after but or than, and it is also sometimes allowed in poetry; as, [There is] “No person of reflection but [who] must be sensible, that an incident makes a stronger impression on an eye-witness, than when heard at second hand.”—­Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 257.

   “In this ’tis God directs, in that ’tis man.”—­Pope, on Man.

    “Abuse on all he lov’d, or lov’d him, spread.”—­Id., to Arbuthnot.

    “There’s nothing blackens like the ink of fools.”—­Id., to Augustus.

OBS. 23.—­The antecedent is sometimes suppressed, especially in poetry; as, “Who will, may be a judge.”—­Churchill.  “How shall I curse [him or them] whom God hath not cursed?”—­Numbers, xxiii, 8.  “There are, indeed, [some persons] who seem disposed to extend her authority much farther.”—­Campbell’s Philosophy of Rhet., p. 187.

    [He] “Who lives to nature, rarely can be poor;
    [He] Who lives to fancy, never can be rich.”—­Young.

    “Serious should be an author’s final views;
    [They] Who write for pure amusement, ne’er amuse.”—­Id.

OBS. 24.—­Which, as well as who, was formerly applied to persons; as, “Our Father which art in heaven.”—­Bible.  “Pray for them which despitefully use you.”—­Luke, vi, 28.  And, as to the former example here cited, some British critics, still preferring the archaism, have accused “The Americans” of “poor criticism,” in that they “have changed which into who, as being more consonant to the rules of Grammar.”  Falsely imagining, that which and who, with the same antecedent, can be of different genders, they allege, that, “The use of the neuter pronoun carried with it a certain vagueness and sublimity, not inappropriate in reminding us that our worship is addressed to a Being, infinite, and superior to all distinctions applicable to material objects.”—­Men and Manners in America:  quoted and endorsed by the REV.  MATT.  HARRISON, in his treatise on the English Language, p. 191.  This is all fancy; and, in my opinion, absurd.  It is just like the religious prejudice which could discern “a singular propriety” in “the double superlative most highest.”—­Lowth’s Gram., p. 28.  But which may still be applied to a young child, if sex and intelligence be disregarded; as, “The child which died.”  Or even to adults, when they are spoken of without regard to a distinct personality or identity; as, “Which of you will go?”—­“Crabb knoweth not which is which, himself or his parodist.”—­Leigh Hunt.