On the Straight Dope website, someone has taken grammatical issue. He says,

Cecil writes "Attending a dance at a professor's house, he got into a quarrel with one Manderup Parsbjerg, like himself a member of the Danish gentry." Seems to me that's a rather abrupt shift in antecedent. "He" and and "himself" I assume refer to Tycho, while "a member of the Danish gentry" to Manderup Parsbjerg. But it took a while for me to digest that sentence. It's not too important, but I thought I'd point it out as something to watch out for.

Others, including myself, had no trouble understanding the criticized sentence. I claim no special command of grammar, and so I ask: what, if anything, is wrong with the criticized sentence? Or is the sentence fine and the critic the problem?

If the sentence is intelligible the fault, dear Sparteye, is not in ourselves, but in the rules of the grammar.

I had no difficulty understanding the sentence. It seems to me that there is an ellipsis "...Manderup Parsbjerg, who was, like himself, a member of the Danish gentry."

Perhaps it would have been simpler to have said "... Manderup Parsbjerg who was also a member of the Danish gentry."

I can't understand the problem. It's completely unambiguous. Perhaps because there are three people in it, and two anaphoric pronouns, "he" and "himself", and some ellipsis, it looks as if there could be a problem with reference. But there isn't. It's clear, and can only be read in the correct way.

Attending a dance at a professor's house, he

Well "he" obviously isn't the professor. It is clearly the unexpressed person attending.

with one Manderup Parsbjerg, like himself

This clearly doesn't mean that Parsbjerg resembles himself, that his mirror reflection is faithful. "One" introduces a new person. "B, like A" implies A is different and has already been mentioned. In "like himself", the "himself" refers back to someone already mentioned in the sentence. Since "he" couldn't refer to the professor, even more clearly the repetitive "self" can't: so this must be the person attending the professor's house, the "he".

like himself a member of the Danish gentry
while "a member of the Danish gentry" to Manderup Parsbjerg

No, it refers to both of them, obviously. Why does the commentator have to decide who it belongs to? "B like A is X" means unambiguously that both A and B are X.

It's the reviewer who's ambiguous. Like Ol' Nick, I found the sentence completely understandable first time up. It certainly doesn't need more words added to "simplify" it!

I had stayed out of this, thinking that the ease with which I understood the senrtence indicated that I was missing some arcane flaw. Now that the experts have concurred, I feel safe to say that I didn't understand what the problem was.

Thank you, all. I appreciate your erudite opinions.

Thank you, NW, for a complete and lucid explanation. Well done.