The Personal Use of Relative which in Shakespearean English: The Relevance of Social and Emotional Factors

5.1.1 Which

Romeo and Juliet is an early tragedy composed in 1595 or 1596. In this play, there are ten instances of personal which. In most cases, the antecedent of personal which is clearly of lower status than the speaker or they are of nearly equal rank. In example (6), there is a large social distance between the speaker, Romeo, and the referent, an apothecary:

(6) ROMEO. I do remember an apothecary – / And hereabouts ’a dwells – which late I noted / In tatt’red weeds, with overwhelming brows, / Culling of simples; meagre were his looks, / Sharp misery had worn him to the bones (Rom 5.1.37–41)

As soon as Romeo receives the news of Juliet’s death, he decides to kill himself and to buy a fatal poison from the poor apothecary. The antecedent of which is an apothecary (paraphrased as ’a ‘he’). It is obvious that Romeo, a noble man, is superior in status to the apothecary. The difference in their social status is reflected in the second person pronouns they use: Romeo invariably addresses the apothecary using thou or its inflected forms (passim in Rom 5.1.58–84), while the apothecary only uses you to Romeo (Rom 5.1.77 and 5.1.79). Moreover, Romeo’s insulting description of the apothecary in (6), e.g. “tatt’red weeds” (‘ragged clothes’), “overwhelming brows”, and “meagre”, indicates that he despises the apothecary as a poor social inferior. Thus, Romeo’s contemptuous feelings toward the apothecary as well as their social positions may have triggered the use of which.

Emotions can be a more significant factor, as shown when Lady Capulet uses which to refer to Tybalt and Romeo in her conversation with her daughter Juliet after Romeo has slain Tybalt:

(7) LADY CAPULET. So shall you feel the loss, but not the friend

Which you weep for.

JULIET. Feeling so the loss,

I cannot choose but ever weep the friend.

LADY CAPULET. Well, girl, thou weep’st not so much for his death,

As that the villain lives which slaughter’d him. (Rom 3.5.75–79)

Here, the friend ‘kinsman’ is Tybalt, Lady Capulet’s nephew, and the villain is Romeo, who has slain him. The antecedent the friend indicates her intimacy with Tybalt; her affection towards him is obvious in her cry in the scene of his death: “Tybalt, my cousin! O my brother’s child!” (Rom 3.1.146). On the other hand, she displays her hatred of Romeo, insultingly calling him the villain. According to Busse (2003: 213), villain, as an address noun, shows the highest degree of co-occurrence with thou of all the abusive vocatives.^[23] Thus, which appears with the noun that most strongly prefers thou.

Personal which is also uttered by characters who are highly emotional, as in the next two examples:

(8) JULIET [to Romeo]. Do not swear at all; Or if thou wilt, swear by thy gracious self, / Which is the god of my idolatry (Rom 2.2.112–114)

(9) BENVOLIO. O Romeo, Romeo, brave Mercutio is dead! / That gallant spirit hath aspir’d the clouds, / Which too untimely here did scorn the earth. (Rom 3.1.116–118)

Example (8) is from the balcony scene, in which Romeo and Juliet passionately confess their love for each other. She uses which in conjunction with thy gracious self to refer to Romeo. It should be noted that thy, not your, combines with self here; the adjective gracious ‘lovely, attractive’ (Schmidt 1971: I, 490 (5)) also reveals her deep love for him.^[24] Example (9) is uttered by Benvolio after the disastrous scene in which Mercutio is stabbed by Tybalt and dies. Benvolio shouts to Romeo, using which in reference to dead Mercutio. Benvolio must have been stunned by the death of his friend. Likewise, Friar Lawrence’s which in (10) can be regarded as expressing emotion:

(10) FRIAR LAWRENCE [to Romeo]. Fie, fie, thou shamest thy shape, thy love, thy wit, / Which like a usurer abound’st in all, / And usest none in that true use indeed / Which should bedeck thy shape, thy love, thy wit. (Rom 3.3.122–125)^[25]

In this scene, the friar harshly scolds Romeo for crying over his banishment. As a mentor and friend, the friar is always affectionate to Romeo, but now Romeo’s womanish tears let him down, and he reprimands Romeo, urging him to be more reasonable (Rom 3.3.108 ff.). His exclamation, “Fie, fie”, expresses his “indignant reproach” (OED s.v. fie, int. 1.). Emotions of different sorts – anger and fatherly affection – reside in the friar’s words in this passage.

There remain four more instances of which used with personal antecedents:

(11) ROMEO. What lady’s that which doth enrich the hand / Of yonder knight? (Rom 1.5.41–42)

(12) CHORUS. That fair for which love groan’d for and would die (Rom 2.0.3)

(13) JULIET. To move the heavens to smile upon my state, / Which, well thou knowest, is cross and full of sin. (Rom 4.3.4–5)

(14) FRIAR LAWRENCE. But he which bore my letter, Friar John, / Was stayed by accident (Rom 5.3.250–251)

In (11), Romeo has not yet got acquainted with Juliet, and he asks who she is. Example (12) is uttered by the Chorus, whose social status cannot be determined; the antecedent, That fair, refers to Rosaline. In (13), Juliet refers to herself.^[26] In (14), Friar Lawrence uses which to refer to Friar John, whom he asked to deliver his letter to Romeo in Mantua; their statuses are not clarified in the play text, but they may be equal in rank as Franciscan brethren since John addresses Lawrence as thou (Rom 5.2.15, 5.2.23). These four instances cannot be categorised into either the social or emotional use of which. However, it should be noted that personal which, including (11)–(14), is never used in reference to social superiors by someone lower in rank in Romeo and Juliet.

5.1.2 Who and whom

Romeo and Juliet contains twelve tokens of who(m) (eight of who and four of whom). As we have shown in the previous section, speakers never employ which to refer to people of higher status in this play, but who does appear in such a case. The Watchman, for example, uses who to refer to Juliet when he finds her dead in the tomb:

(15) FIRST WATCHMAN. And Juliet bleeding, warm, and newly dead, / Who here hath lain this two days buried. (Rom 5.3.175–176)

Whom is available between nobles that are probably of the same rank, as Benvolio uses it to refer to Rosaline in (16), and Juliet to Romeo in (17):

(16) BENVOLIO. At this same ancient feast of Capulet’s / Sups the fair Rosaline whom thou so loves, / With all the admired beauties of Verona. (Rom 1.2.82–84)

(17) JULIET. I will not marry yet, and when I do, I swear / It shall be Romeo, whom you know I hate, / Rather than Paris. (Rom 3.5.121–123)

People referred to by who(m) cover a wide range in social status, including social superiors.

The previous section established that which is often used when the speaker’s emotions are heightened. Lady Capulet, for example, refers to Tybalt and Romeo by using which in high excitement in (7). However, she uses who to refer to her husband in less emotional contexts:

(18) LADY CAPULET. Well, well, thou hast a careful father, child, / One who, to put thee from thy heaviness, / Hath sorted out a sudden day of joy (Rom 3.5.107–109)

Lady Capulet had previously been cursing at Romeo, planning vengeance on him (Rom 3.5.87 ff.). Her interjections in (18), “Well, well”, may be just an expletive (Schmidt 1971: II, 1351 (4)), but it is more likely to be a signal that her tone as well as her topic has changed here. She soothes Juliet, kindly suggesting that she should marry Paris; here Lady Capulet talks much more calmly than in (7).

The level of formality may be relevant to the choice of who(m). Examining second person pronouns, Jucker and Taavitsainen (2013: 1) show that an attorney insultingly addressed Sir Walter Raleigh as thou during his trial in spite of the formality of the courtroom where you was expected. In (19) below, Escalus, Prince of Verona, orders Benvolio to explain the details of the affray that caused the death of Mercutio and Tybalt. Answering the Prince, Benvolio uses relative who(m) three times in succession, referring to Tybalt, Mercutio, and Romeo:

(19) PRINCE. Benvolio, who began this bloody fray?

BENVOLIO. Tybalt, here slain, whom Romeo’s hand did slay!

[...] but that he [Tybalt] tilts

With piercing steel at bold Mercutio’s breast,

Who, all as hot, turns deadly point to point,

[...] and then Tybalt fled;

But by and by comes back to Romeo,

Who had but newly entertain’d revenge (Rom 3.1.151–171)

Interestingly, Benvolio uses which to refer to Mercutio immediately after his death, as cited in (9) above. His using who and which to refer to the same person may be taken as a mark of equivalency between the two relative pronouns; however, the situation markedly differs between the two passages. In the scene where (19) occurs, Lord Montague, Lord Capulet, and their wives are present in addition to Escalus.^[27] They are parents or close relatives of those Benvolio names as involved in the affray: Lord and Lady Montague are Romeo’s parents; Lady Capulet is Tybalt’s aunt, as indicated when she herself cries, “Tybalt, my cousin! O my brother’s child!” (Rom 3.1.146); and Escalus is Mercutio’s relative, as shown by Benvolio’s words: “thy kinsman, brave Mercutio” (Rom 3.1.145). When Benvolio speaks in front of these elderly people, that is, in a more formal situation than (9) above, who(m), the neutral form, is likely to be more appropriate.

Similarly, a difference in situation can account for variation in Friar Lawrence’s choice of relative pronouns in reference to Romeo. He uses which in conjunction with thou when he scolds Romeo in (10). However, in his last monologue of this play, he uses whom to refer to Romeo, explaining how he and Juliet died:

(20) FRIAR LAWRENCE. I married them, and their stol’n marriage-day / Was Tybalt’s dooms-day, whose untimely death / Banish’d the new-made bridegroom from this city, / For whom, and not for Tybalt, Juliet pin’d. (Rom 5.3.233–236)

As in the scene of (19), Escalus, Lord Montague, Lord and Lady Capulet are present here.^[28] In this formal situation, whom may be more appropriate for the friar to use to refer to the late Romeo.

We have examined eight instances of who(m) in Romeo and Juliet.^[29] It refers to people of various sorts of social status; the speaker’s emotions are not relevant to the choice of who(m); in more formal scenes they use who(m), not which. All this indicates that who(m) is the generally preferred neutral form.

5.1.3 Summary

To sum up, two factors are in play in Shakespeare’s choice of personal which in Romeo and Juliet. One is social hierarchy of the speaker and the referent: using which with a personal antecedent is permissible when the antecedent is lower in social rank than the speaker, or when there are no particular differences in social power between them. In fact, which is never used to refer to social superiors. The other factor is the speaker’s emotional state. Personal which tends to occur in highly emotional contexts, in which the character speaks with affection, anger, or even strong hatred. On the other hand, who(m) is used as the neutral form, referring to both social equals and superiors. In addition, in formal situations where people of high status are present, characters seem to prefer who(m). All this suggests that who(m) is the unmarked, neutral form, while which is the marked form as a personal relative pronoun.

5.2.1 Which

King Richard II is a history play dated to 1595, thus composed around the same time as Romeo and Juliet. In this play, there are nine instances of personal which. Other than in Richard’s lines, the play contains two instances in which social inferiors are referred to using which:

(21) GREEN. Now for the rebels which stand out in Ireland, / Expedient manage must be made, (R2 1.4.38–39)

(22) BULLINGBROOK. Bushy, Bagot, and their complices, / The caterpillars of the commonwealth, / Which I have sworn to weed and pluck away. (R2 2.3.165–167)

In (21), which refers to the Irish rebels. Their social status is not clarified, but they are not likely to be superior to the speaker, Sir Henry Green, Richard’s retainer. In (22), the speaker, Bullingbrook, is superior in status to the antecedents, Bushy, Bagot, and their complices, who are Richard’s servants. It is also important that Bullingbrook calls them names: “The caterpillars of the commonwealth”. (Note that Bullingbrook is Richard’s rival, who eventually ascends his throne.) Bullingbrook’s hostile feelings toward his rival’s servants as well as his social position may have triggered the use of which here.

The significance of social hierarchy is corroborated by the fact that Richard uses personal which three times, most frequently of all the characters of this play:

(23) RICHARD. We must supplant those rough rug-headed kerns, / Which live like venom (R2 2.1.156–157)

(24) RICHARD [to Aumerle]. Beshrew thee, cousin, which didst lead me forth / Of that sweet way I was in to despair! (R2 3.2.204–205)

(25) RICHARD [to Northumberland]. He shall think that thou, which knowest the way / To plant unrightful kings, wilt know again (R2 5.1.62–63)

The antecedents are all socially lower than Richard. The antecedent in (23) is “kerns”, Irish foot soldiers belonging to the poorer class (OED s.v. kern, n. 1a.). The antecedent thee refers to the Duke of Aumerle in (24), and thou to Northumberland in (25). In these three instances, which may be employed, just like the social use of thou, to refer to social inferiors. In addition, Richard’s emotions may be another factor to evoke which in (23)–(25). As kern is often used with contempt (Onions 1986: 148), he is obviously insulting them; also noteworthy is his scornful statement in the relative clause “live like venom”. Furthermore, he is extremely emotional towards Aumerle and Northumberland. In (24), he is upset to hear that the Duke of York and southern gentlemen have joined Bullingbrook and suddenly vents his fury on the Duke of Aumerle; Richard’s curse, “Beshrew thee”, which means ‘Evil befall, mischief take, devil take, curse, hang!’ (OED s.v. beshrew, v. 3b), signals his fierce anger. In (25), Richard addresses Northumberland, who helped Bullingbrook – an “unrightful” king in Richard’s words – to ascend the throne. Richard is extremely emotional in the scenes of (24) and (25), in which his disastrous fate was determined. Two factors – social status and emotions – are at play in Richard’s using which in the three sentences above.

In this play, there are two more instances of ‘thou + which’, both referring to King Richard. One is uttered by John of Gaunt, Richard’s uncle:

(26) GAUNT [to Richard]. Deposing thee before thou wert possess’d, / Which art possess’d now to depose thyself. (R2 2.1.107–108)

Since the unmarked form for addressing sovereigns is you (Stein 2003: 270), Gaunt’s use of thou deviates from the norm. In fact, the Duke of York, another uncle of Richard, consistently addresses him as you (R2 2.1.141–143 and passim). At the opening scene of this play, Gaunt also courteously addresses Richard as “my liege” (R2 1.1.7) and “your Highness” (R2 1.1.14), but when they meet again in Act 2 Scene 1, he is extremely angry at Richard’s misbehaviour. Abandoning his respectful mode of address, Gaunt uses thou or its variant forms in addressing Richard over thirty times, never employing you-forms (R2 2.1.81–136). His consistent use of thou-forms in this scene is attributable to his furious emotions, and his use of which can similarly be classified as an emotional one.

The other instance of ‘thou + which’ is uttered by the Queen, Richard’s wife. She uses it when she meets the deposed Richard in a London street:

(27) QUEEN [to Richard]. The lion dying thrusteth forth his paw, / And wounds the earth, if nothing else, with rage / To be o’erpow’r’d, and wilt thou, pupil-like, / Take the correction, mildly kiss the rod, / And fawn on rage with base humility, / Which art a lion and the king of beasts? (R2 5.1.29–34)

Here the Queen is distraught by her husband’s deposition; she repeatedly urges him to be strong like a lion, displaying her frustration with the weak, “pupil-like” husband. Since the unmarked form of address from a spouse to a sovereign is you (Stein 2003: 271), her use of thou here can be considered to deviate from the norm. Actually, she invariably uses thou to Richard in this passage (passim in R2 5.1.7–28) with only one exception (R2 5.1.9). Her high emotions may have triggered which, just like thou, to refer to Richard.

The emotional use of which is found in Mowbray’s abuse of Bullingbrook, both of whom are dukes:

(28) MOWBRAY. I am disgrac’d, impeach’d, and baffled here, / Pierc’d to the soul with slander’s venom’d spear, / The which no balm can cure but his heart-blood / Which breath’d this poison. (R2 1.1.170–173)^[30]

We have so far examined all the nine instances of personal which in King Richard II, except for one: “I [...] Which elder days shall ripen” (R2 2.3.41–43), where Percy refers to himself. Here, social status is unhelpful in assessing the use of which. Thus, personal which is used to refer to social inferiors or someone equal in social status. Two exceptions, viz. examples (26) and (27), occur with thou in reference to King Richard, who is of the highest class. From the contexts, however, these uses of both which and thou can be regarded as emotional uses.

5.2.2 Who and whom

King Richard II contains twenty tokens of who(m) (twelve of who and eight of whom). Examples in this play show who(m) referring to people belonging to a wide range of status levels from beggars, as in (29), to nobles, as in (30):

(29) RICHARD. [...] like seely beggars / Who sitting in the stocks refuge their shame (R2 5.5.25–26)

(30) KEEPER. Sir Pierce of Exton, who / Lately came from the King, commands the contrary. (R2 5.5.100–101)

In (29), the speaker is Richard and the antecedent is seely [‘poor’] beggars; in (30), the speaker is the Keeper and the antecedent, Sir Pierce of Exton, is his master. Thus, the antecedents of who may be either lower or higher in social status than the speakers. The following two examples support the irrelevance of social hierarchy in using who(m):

(31) RICHARD. [...] this thief, this traitor Bullingbrook, / Who all this while hath revell’d in the night (R2 3.2.47–48)

(32) CARLISLE. My Lord of Herford here, whom you call king, / Is a foul traitor to proud Herford’s king (R2 4.1.134–135)

In both (31) and (32), Bullingbrook, Richard’s rival, is referred to, but it should be noted that in (31), Richard refers to Bullingbrook before he ascends the throne; in (32), Carlisle refers to Bullingbrook after his accession as King Henry IV. Thus, his status varies between the two scenes. Examples (29)–(32) indicate that who(m) is socially neutral as a personal relative pronoun.

Who(m) is also the ordinary choice in comparatively unemotional scenes or a formal situation. In (33)–(35) below, both speakers, Bullingbrook and York, refer to Richard:

(33) BULLINGBROOK. So that by this intelligence we learn / The Welshmen are dispers’d, and Salisbury / Is gone to meet the King, who lately landed / With some few private friends upon this coast. (R2 3.3.1–4)

(34) YORK. Both are my kinsmen: / T’ one is my sovereign, whom both my oath / And duty bids defend (R2 2.2.111–113)

(35) YORK. I come to thee / From plume-pluck’d Richard, who with willing soul / Adopts thee heir (R2 4.1.107–109)

In (33), Bullingbrook is reading (or summarising the contents of) a paper of “intelligence”, i.e. military information (Gurr 1984: 124); Bullingbrook is probably calm, as he is satisfied with the news about Richard’s fall, which is “very fair and good” (R2 3.3.5) for his side. In (34), York is at a loss facing the conflict between his nephews, Richard and Bullingbrook, and is caught in a dilemma (Gurr 1984: 103); York is described as a “vacillating and uncertain” figure in this play (Dawson and Yachnin 2011: 75), as illustrated by this scene; his statement reflects baffled puzzlement more than any stronger emotion. The last example is taken from a scene in Parliament: York enters and makes the announcement in (35), whereupon Bullingbrook declares, “In God’s name I’ll ascend the regal throne” (R2 4.1.113); thus, this who is employed in a very formal situation.

Whereas Gaunt, when losing his temper, uses which to refer to Richard in (26), it is telling that in the very same scene, he also uses whom, wishing good fortune to befall his late brother:

(36) GAUNT. My brother Gloucester, plain well-meaning soul, / Whom fair befall in heaven ’mongst happy souls (R2 2.1.128–129)

This example confirms that his use of which was triggered by his furious anger at Richard.

These eight instances of who(m) in King Richard II demonstrate that who(m) refers to people of widely differing social status, and that the speaker’s emotions are not relevant to the use of who(m).^[31] Hence it can be safely said that who(m) is the neutral choice as a personal relative pronoun.

5.2.3 Summary

In King Richard II, personal which refers to a social equal once, viz. (28), and to social inferiors six times, but the other two instances refer to Richard, a sovereign, viz. (26) and (27). The exceptions, however, do not refute the hypothesis that which is distributed similarly to thou. Instead, they prove the relevance of the other factor – the speaker’s emotional state – in choosing which. In (26) and (27), the speakers, Gaunt and the Queen, are so stressed that they address Richard as thou, perhaps deviating from the norm. Their use of which is also consistent with their high emotional states. In contrast, Richard is referred to by who(m) in examples (33)–(35), in which the speakers, Bullingbrook and York, show no obvious strong emotions.

5.3.1 Which

In King Lear, a later play dated to 1605, personal which occurs twelve times. These include two instances which cannot be categorised into the social or emotional use:

(37) GENTLEMAN. Every one hears that, / Which can distinguish sound. (Lr 4.6.210–211)

(38) EDMUND. And turn our impress’d lances in our eyes / Which do command them. (Lr 5.3.50–51)

In (37), the antecedent is everyone; in (38), Edmund refers to those who were at the British camp including himself. Social status is not relevant here; nor can any strong emotions be recognised.

Yet there is a clear difference in social status between the speaker and the referent in the following three instances, in which the speakers are nobles, while the antecedents are all servants that are not individualised:

(39) KENT. Who have – as who have not, that their great stars / Thron’d and set high? – servants, who seem no less, / Which are to France the spies and speculations / Intelligent of our state. (Lr 3.1.22–25)^[32]

(40) GONERIL. And the remainders that shall still depend, / To be such men as may besort your age, / Which know themselves and you. (Lr 1.4.250–252)

(41) GLOUCESTER. [...] he which finds him [Edgar] shall deserve our thanks (Lr 2.1.61)

In (39), the Earl of Kent warns against treacherous servants that may give information to their enemy France. In (40), Goneril asks her father to employ servants that befit his age and know their places and his; she means ‘servants’ by such men. In (41), the Earl of Gloucester orders his servants to capture Edgar and he which could refer to any one of the servants (whichever one(s) succeed).^[33]

A particularly impressive contrast is found in the Earl of Gloucester’s language. In reference to his son Edgar, Gloucester uses who(m) and which twice, respectively:

(42) GLOUCESTER. I have a son, sir, by order of law, some year elder than this, who yet is no dearer in my account. (Lr 1.1.19–21)

(43) GLOUCESTER. I’ th’ last night’s storm I such a fellow saw, / Which made me think a man a worm. (Lr 4.1.32–33)

(44) GLOUCESTER. And bring some covering for this naked soul, / Which I’ll entreat to lead me. (Lr 4.1.44–45)

(45) GLOUCESTER [to the beggar]. Here, take this purse, thou whom the heav’ns’ plagues / Have humbled to all strokes. (Lr 4.1.64–65)

In (42), Gloucester talks about his sons, Edgar and Edmund, using who to refer to Edgar. In (43)–(45), Edgar is in disguise as a naked beggar and is feigning madness in order not to be captured and killed (Act 2 Scene 3). In (43), Gloucester remembers the beggar, “such a fellow”, whom he saw in the storm scenes of Act 3. Note that fellow is an appellation of contempt (OED s.v. fellow, n. 10c, Schmidt 1971: I, 411 (3)); Barber (1981: 274) points out the collocation of fellow and thou in Richard III. In (44), the beggar comes to Gloucester, who orders his tenant to bring clothes for the naked man but has not yet identified the man as his own son. In (45), Gloucester addresses the beggar with thou whom [...]. Thus, Gloucester uses which twice and whom once to refer to Edgar disguised as a beggar, while he only uses who when he recognises him as his own son. Gloucester’s condescending attitude to the beggar – a man of the lowest status – seems to have triggered the use of which.

Personal which is found twice in furious quarrels. It occurs with knave ‘villain’, a term of abuse (OED s.v. knave, n. 3a), in Act 2 Scene 2, where the Duke of Cornwall and the Earl of Kent, both nobles, insult each other:

(46) CORNWALL. These kind of knaves I know, which in this plainness / Harbor more craft and more corrupter ends (Lr 2.2.101–102)

(47) KENT. He that beguil’d you in a plain accent was a plain knave, which for my part I will not be (Lr 2.2.111–112)

Cornwall refers to Kent by These kind of knaves in (46). Alluding to this, Kent retorts using ‘knave + which’ against him in (47).^[34] Similarly, Kent, Lear’s servant, uses which to refer to Oswald, Goneril’s steward:

(48) KENT. [...] the very fellow which of late / Display’d so saucily against your Highness (Lr 2.4.40–41)

The antecedent is fellow again here, as in (43) above. Kent has quarrelled with Oswald twice by then, first when Oswald is insolent to Lear in Act 1 Scene 4 (l. 44–92) and again when Kent encounters Oswald in front of Gloucester’s castle at the opening of Act 2 Scene 2. Kent’s use of which in (48) above is probably due to his (mounting) anger at Oswald.

Finally, the Fool uses which as follows:

(49) LEAR. I should be false persuaded I had daughters.

FOOL. Which they will make an obedient father. (Lr 1.4.234–235)

The antecedent is I, by which Lear refers to himself.^[35] This example – which to the King – may seem contrary to the generalisation that which does not collocate with social superiors. However, Mulholland (1967: 41–42) shows that the Fool uses thou and its variant forms 35 times to Lear,^[36] arguing that the Fool’s “pronoun usage bears out his unique status in the play”. The Fool’s use of which in (49) is thus entirely consistent with his (exceptional) pattern of usage. The Fool uses which once more in his song:

(50) FOOL. That sir which serves and seeks for gain, / And follows but for form, / Will pack when it begins to rain, / And leave thee in the storm. (Lr 2.4.78–81)

By That sir the Fool implies Lear’s knights who deserted him (Foakes 1997: 243). In its literal sense, sir means ‘gentleman’, but it is used ironically here, as noted in Onions (1986: 253 (2)) and Schmidt (1971: II, 1065 (1)). The Fool criticises those who leave their fallen master (Lear is implied), mocking their self-serving behaviour. In this context, he actually calls them “knaves” (Lr 2.4.76), a word that collocates with which twice in this play, viz. examples (46) and (47). Probably, which is used here because of the Fool’s cynicism towards Lear’s disloyal knights.

5.3.2 Who and whom

King Lear contains forty tokens of who(m) in total (twenty-nine of who and eleven of whom). The far greater total for personal relativisation in this play is consistent with Hope’s (2010: 153) finding that there is a substantial increase of relativisation from early to later periods of Shakespeare’s career as a playwright. This chronological change is itself intriguing as an index of Shakespeare’s changing style; but what is more significant for the present study is that this general tendency is reflected in the use of who(m), but not that of personal which, whose frequency remains almost static so that the relative frequency of which declines.

There is also some evidence of who(m) directly replacing which in contexts where it was most dominant in earlier works. It has been pointed out that Cornwall and Kent use which to insult each other as cited in (46) and (47) above. In the same scene, Act 2 Scene 2, and in the same context of trading insults, they use who to refer to each other as well:

(51) KENT. That such a slave as this should wear a sword, / Who wears no honesty. (Lr 2.2.72–73)

(52) CORNWALL. This is some fellow / Who, having been prais’d for bluntness, doth affect / A saucy roughness (Lr 2.2.95–97)

The antecedents here are abusive terms, slave and fellow. In (53) below, villain, “a typical ‘thou-word’” in Busse’s term (2003: 213), is used with who. Beggars, people of the lowest rank, also occurs as the antecedent of who in (54):

(53) GONERIL. Fools do those villains pity who are punish’d / Ere they have done their mischief (Lr 4.2.54–55)

(54) EDGAR. The country gives me proof and president / Of Bedlam beggars, who, with roaring voices, / Strike in their numb’d and mortified arms / Pins, wooden pricks, nails, sprigs of rosemary (Lr 2.3.13–16)

When speakers refer to social superiors, they usually use who(m) in Romeo and Juliet and King Richard II; this tendency is also seen in King Lear. Who(m) refers to social superiors, sovereigns, in the following three instances:

(55) KENT. Royal Lear, / Whom I have ever honor’d as my king, / Lov’d as my father, as my master follow’d / As my great patron thought on in my prayers (Lr 1.1.139–142)

(56) KENT. Well, sir, the poor distressed Lear’s i’ th’ town, / Who sometime, in his better tune, remembers / What we are come about (Lr 4.3.38–40)

(57) LEAR. My Lord of Burgundy, / We first address toward you, who with this king / Hath rivall’d for our daughter. (Lr 1.1.189–191)

In (55), Kent states that he has been deferential toward Lear; the adjective royal displays his respectfulness. In (56), Kent, who is absolutely loyal to Lear, uses who to refer to Lear again. In (57), Lear uses who with polite you to refer to the Duke of Burgundy. According to Stein (2003: 265), Lear addresses Burgundy as you seven times in this play, never addressing him as thou; as Lear courteously addresses the duke as “noble Burgundy” (Lr 1.1.195) and “your Grace” (Lr 1.1.200), he is actually very deferential to Burgundy in this scene. When speakers show deference or respect to the referents, which is never employed.

The seven instances cited above prove the neutrality of who(m).^[37] It can collocate even with abusive terms, such as fellow, slave, and villain, in very insulting contexts. Contrariwise, who(m) is also used by speakers who show respect to the referents; our examination of the three plays has not found any instances of which in contexts like (55)–(57), in which the speakers are respectful to the referents. It can be safely said that who(m) is the neutral form used to refer to people of various statuses in a wide range of situations.

5.3.3 Summary

The investigation of King Lear confirms the strong relationship between which and abusive terms: personal which collocates with fellow twice, viz. (43) and (48), and with knave twice, viz. (46) and (47). Examples (46)–(48) in particular are found in quarrels, which indicates that which is likely to be chosen in a situation of furious emotions. When a character courteously talks to a sovereign, as in (55)–(57), he consistently uses who(m), never which. Thus, who(m) must be the neutral form that speakers usually use in various situations. The Fool’s using which to refer to Lear does not invalidate our argument, because as he almost always addresses Lear as thou, his use of which represents a stylistically consistent choice.