tion of the Bible would do well to disuse 'but' in the sententious contrasts or obverse couples scattered everywhere in the Old and New Testaments, and more especially frequent in the Book of Proverbs. The 10th chapter of Proverbs is almost wholly made up of these obverse couples; and there are only three exceptions to the use of but'verses 15, 16, 20; although it is just as much required for these as for the rest. Either while' might be used, or, as in these three verses, nothing at all. The phrase 'on the other hand' is a good equivalent, but too long for the sententious structure.

In the following verses, Romans iv. 4, 5, 'while' is a remedy for the collision of 'buts': 'Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt: (but) while' to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly -’.

'No chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous'. (Hebrews xii. 2.) 'No chastening for the present seemeth joyous; on the contrary it is grievous'. Otherwise, chastisement at the time is not joyous; on the contrary, it is grievous'.

'Though admiration is excited by abstruse researches, yet pleasure is not given, nor affection conciliated but by softer accomplishments'. Although 'but' is abundantly employed in this situation, the meaning is more precisely hit by 'except' or (turning the sentence) by 'only'.

In the construction 'not-but', the 'but' is taken away from its proper employment to constitute a pause before a transition. Instead of saying 'not that, but this', it would be enough to say 'not that, this' could we only pause after uttering' that', to shew that the negative has been stated, and that the positive is now to be given. When the order is changed, but' is not wanted. 'Give me that, not this'. Also when we repeat the verb: 'I don't want that, I want this', 'don't give me that, give me this'. A good speaker could give with his voice the transition-Not the Jews only, the whole of the ancient world, practised the rites of sacrifice'. In print, however, our chief device is the use of

'but', which, although drawn from its strict signification, is consecrated to the purpose.

IF. This short emphatic word is greatly overdone. When an action hangs upon some condition, the conditional clause is introduced by 'if'. 'I will go to the meeting, if I be disengaged'. There is an action pending; some other action or fact is needed before it can take place.

The laws of nature contain an expression for two things that hang together, so that when the one happens, the other happens also. 'Stones sink in water'; 'wood floats'. Throw a stone into a pool, and it will sink to the bottom; throw in a piece of wood, and it will float. We are not guilty of positive error in expressing any such law with an 'if': 'if stones are let fall into water they will sink to the bottom'. The impropriety lies in intruding the conjunction into a case sufficiently provided for by a simpler expression-' stones sink in water', 'wood floats'. Instead of the short expression 'gold is heavy', I might use the pompous circumlocution, 'If you take a piece of gold, and weigh it bulk for bulk against other materials, you will find it heavy ’.

'If you will come, I shall be delighted', would be more elegant your coming will delight me. If it would rain, we should get much good'; rain would do much good'. 'If I would compare Jonson with Shakespeare, I must acknowledge him the correcter poet'. Comparing him

with Shakespeare, I must acknowledge-'.

According as an action becomes in its import grave, is there propriety in stating the condition with emphasis— 'If he is guilty, his punishment will be severe'. To sayhis guilt will be followed by a severe punishment', is feeble and inadequate.

'If' used for 'in order that'. From the speech of the Home Secretary, it will be seen that a strong expression of public opinion is required if the Bill is to be passed into a Law'.

INFLECTION.

149

THE GENDER OF NOUNS.

EXCEPT for employing correctly the various names distinctive of the masculine and feminine genders, there is little in this department of grammar to occupy the pupils. One of the merits of our language consists in not imposing gender upon inanimate things.

It is noticed in the Grammar that, while we have names for the masculine and the feminine gender, we have in many cases also a name for both indifferently; as 'child', which applies alike to a boy and to a girl. So we have the names 'person', 'human being', for both sexes. In like manner,

there are numerous designations of trades, offices, or occupations, without distinction of sex: shop-keeper, grocer, stationer, inn-keeper, citizen, elector, voter, teacher, agent, speaker, neighbour, rival-apply alike to men and to women. The names for classes formed on moral or mental qualities are usually common: saint, sinner, believer, Christian, worshipper, friend, enemy, genius, fool, bigot, thief, culprit, schemer, flatterer, outcast, slanderer, backbiter-are used for both sexes.

The reason is obvious. These occupations and characters do not depend upon sex; consequently, the sex is not stated. The principle is sound and intelligible, and is our guide in settling doubtful or distracting usages.

The cases for the employment of distinct names for gender are these:

1. To state the functions where each sex has a character

istic and incommunicable part: as 'husband', 'wife'; 'father', 'mother'. This is the fundamental relation, and whatever refers to it must observe a distinction of sexes. We use 'son' and 'daughter', 'brother' and 'sister', to indicate which of the children of a family can be husbands and fathers, and which wives and mothers. The same applies to the lower animals. This is natural gender in the highest degree.

2. There are certain offices, usually filled by men, that confer rank and honour, so that their titles or designations are honourable. Now, in the system of ranks, the wife shares the honours of the husband; the wife of a sovereign may be unable to exercise any power belonging to her husband, but she has dignity that gives her precedence of all her husband's subjects; whereupon a title is created for her to signify this elevation. If the husband is 'king', the wife is 'queen'; if he is emperor' she is 'empress'. And so for the different grades of nobility: 'duke', 'duchess'; 'baron', 'baroness'.

3. In a few cases, a feminine termination is given to express a woman holding an occupation or character that may be held by either sex, being independent of sex. Such are

author, authoress; testator, testatrix; executor, executrix; heir, heiress; patron, patroness; prophet, prophetess; priest priestess; shepherd, shepherdess; editor, editress; giant, giantess.

'Priestess' is not the wife of a priest; nor 'prophetess' the wife of a prophet; they exercise the vocations in their own person; they may be unmarried, or they may be the wives of men that are neither priest nor prophet.

This last necessity comes into conflict with the preceding, and may lead to ambiguity. Thus we may have a Queen in her own right, who may be a single woman. Such was Queen Elizabeth. So with a Peeress. In the case of master' and 'mistress', both meanings may concur; the mistress has her title partly as wife of the master, and partly as joint head and manager of the household. Being head of a house or establishment will alone obtain the title.

It would be well to disuse the feminine termination for all offices or occupations that do not involve the distinction of sex, and for all occasions when sex is immaterial. Thus -authoress, poetess, executrix, testatrix, administratrix, seem quite unnecessary. Hume says 'Henry VII.'s mother was sole daughter and heir [sex not in question] of the Duke of Somerset'. Motley mentions the Archdukes Albert and Isabella' (Barneveld, I.. p. 211): position, and not sex, is referred to. Some difficulty might be felt with those names that are made up of 'master' and 'mistress'; as 'schoolmaster', 'postmaster'. There is a reason for 'schoolmistress', because in schools there is a division of labour, and certain parts of the teaching are considered as more suitable to the female teacher. There is less necessity for 'postmistress'; seeing that the duties are identical, whoever perform them. We should have something to get over in using the word 'master' to a woman in any form; yet, it seems barely tolerable to adapt to the feminine form the metaphor, 'master of the situation '-' master of herself'. Still instances occur: Such dangers pretty women gladly run into, especially when, like Charlotte von Stein, they are perfect mistresses of themselves'. (G. H. Lewes, Life of Goethe.)

' Actress' is justified by the habit of making women perform women's parts. But for this, it would be as needless as authoress'.

We have not as yet a form suited to addressing a woman in the chair at a meeting. Our forms 'Mr. Chairman', 'Mr. President', 'Sir', are adapted to men. As the word men' is representative of both sexes, when sex is not in the question, so ought the word chairman'. Whether

we can reconcile ourselves to Mr. Chairman' for women as well as for men, is yet in the future.

Formerly there existed both doctoress' and 'doctress'. Now, when women are beginning to aspire to the full status of the medical profession, we do not revive these feminine forms; we extend the masculine title to the other sex, making it a word of no gender.

'Servant applies to both sexes. The designating of the