THE
The word "the" implies existence and uniqueness; it is a mistake to talk
of "the son of So-and-So" if So-and-So has a fine family of ten
sons.[65] People who refer to "the Oxford Movement" imply that Oxford
only moved once; and those quaint people who say that "A is quite the
gentleman" imply both the doubtful proposition that there is only one
gentleman in the world, and the indubitably false proposition that he is
that man. Probably A is one of those persons who add to the confusion in
the use of the definite article by speaking of his wife as "the wife."
In a certain Children's Hymn Book one reads:
The river vast and small.
Few would deny that there is not more than one such river, but
unfortunately it is doubtful if there is such a river at all. The case
is exactly the same with the ontological proof of the existence of the
most perfect being.[66]
According to the _Daily Mail_ of October 9, 1906, Judge Russell decided
against a claim brought by an agent against his company for appointing
another agent, the claim being on the ground that he was appointed as
"the" agent.
Most people admit that the number 2 can be added to the number 2 to give
the number 4, but this is a mistake. They concede, when they use _the_,
that there is only one number 2, and yet they imagine that, when they
consider it apart as the first term of our above sum, they can find
another to add to it, and thereby form the third term. The truth is that
"2 + 2 = 4" is a very misleading equation, and what we really mean by
that faultily abbreviated statement is more precisely: If _x_ and _y_
denote any things which form a class B, and _x'_ and _y'_ any other
things that form a class (A) which, like that of _x_ and _y_, is a
member of the class (which we call "2") of those classes which have a
one-one correspondence with B (so that any member of A corresponds to
one, and only one, member of B, and conversely), the class of all the
terms of A and B together is a member of that class of classes which,
analogously, we call "4." In this, for the sake of shortness, we have
introduced abbreviations which should not be used in a rigorous logical
statement.
FOOTNOTES:
[65] Cf. _Md._, N. S., vol. xiv., 1905, pp. 481, 484.
[66] Cf. _ibid._, p. 491, note.