has manifested itself in the fact that the raw materials of food-cattle, etc.-retained their Saxon names, such as calf, ox, sheep, etc., while the prepared meat is called by the French terms, beef, veal, mutton. Words used by the aristocracy will retain a high and polite signification, while the corresponding words in Saxon used by the vulgar will be spurned by the higher classes, and will receive a vulgar stamp.

Another striking instance of the vulgarizing influence of the Norman Conquest upon the Saxon vernacular is afforded by the word "buxom." In Anglo-Saxon beogan, bugan, and bocsum, it still obtains in the German, biegen, biegsam. In German it has retained its original meaning of bendable, pliable, slender, etc. In a mental sense it meant obedient (pliable), as "Under obedience to be and buxum to the lawe" ("Piers Plowman," about A. D. 1362). In Chaucer ("Clerkes Tale") we have it in its original physical meaning: "And they with humble entent buxumly-knelynge upon hir knees ful reverently." But in English we find a strange alteration in its meaning as applied to the human female figure. I may venture upon the following hypothesis with regard to the history of this word: Originally, I believe, this word was applied to the female figure to denote grace, litheness, slimness. If I remember rightly, some modern poet uses the word in that sense; the "buxom willow," or in some similar context. It would then convey the attribute of pliability and grace which is given in the words of Musset addressed to a lady: "Dans nos valses joyeuses je vous sentait dans mes bras plier comme un roseau." So, I venture to say, the word buxom was frequently applied to graceful, slender girls as a mark of high admiration. After the Norman Conquest, I suppose this to have been the action on the part of those who struck the key-note of bon-ton. Consciously, or half-consciously, the following train of thought seems to have pressed itself upon those of a markedly aristocratic turn of mind: "The people is essentially a distinct body from us, the aristocracy, especially the woman whom we admire so much. The words of the people must denote the attributes of the people: the lady is graceful, etc.; the woman is healthy, stout, red-cheeked, etc.-the lady dances, and we can feel her 'se plier comme un roseau,' but not the peasant-woman." Now, they found the word buxom indicating beauty in the woman of the people, they therefore influenced language, so that "buxom" conveyed the meaning of the beauty peculiar to the woman of the people.

Such a process is not restricted to the historical development of England; but we meet with it repeatedly in history, whenever there is this bloodless intellectual and linguistic warfare between classes. In Germany, e. g., the purely German words were repressed in meaning in proportion as the French gained footing as the language of the courts. and of polite society through Frederick the Great and the subsequent Napoleonic influence. The Frau and Frauenzimmer assumed a lower connotation the more the word "madame was used in connection with

ladies. At present there is a strong reaction against the French idiom in German. Politics and language are closely linked together in their bearing upon one another, and loss in political prestige precedes repression of idiom.

During the time of the Revolution we might have expected a revival of the old word, such as Lust; but the Revolution was puritanic in spirit, and so, instead of being reinstated it was still more repressed, for Puritanism with its stern features was ever averse to expressions of joyful emotions. Only such joy as partook of a lofty, aspiring character was cultivated, and the amiable and light-hearted was immediately stamped as frivolous. I think we must look to Puritanism for an explanation of one curious fact in these expressions. We find many expressions of exalted joy, of temporary pleasurable states (as a contribution from the French), and of the lower pleasure which is to be spurned. But we hardly find a powerful word which expresses a lasting state of pleasure, comprising as well the smallest satisfaction as the loftiest happiness-I mean a word corresponding to the German Glückseligkeit and the Greek evdauovía. In the German word the "glück" comprises all real happiness of life, and the "seligkeit" the most exalted spiritual happiness, and both combine to a lasting positive whole. A person would hardly be shocked were an Epicurean (a follower of the philosophy of Epicurus, I mean) to tell him that "Glückseligkeit was the aim of life," for this would include the highest moral satisfaction; while many people would be shocked to hear that "pleasure," or even "happiness, is the aim of life." This I attribute chiefly to the fact that the Puritan spirit drew a marked line between pleasures: there were exalted pleasures, and there were low pleasures; the first are desirable, the rest are to be repudiated, and there is no middle way.

This spirit, of course, did not always reign supreme, and the natural tendency is never totally to be extinguished, and we have some Saxon expressions of light mirth. But to this spirit, and other natural and historical causes, I attribute the fact that the dark side of expressions has been developed in England out of proportion with the bright side. So, for instance, we find that the German word Mitgefühl is rendered by the English "sympathy." This word, which means a "feeling with," originally meant a "suffering with." But while the German can subdivide this "feeling with " into with-joy and with-suffering (Gönnen, Mitfreude, and Mitleid), the English have two expressions of with-suffering, compassion, and pity, but have no expression for with-joy. One may mention that congratulation' conveys this meaning; but, though

1 A curious instance in actual life which corroborates my statement was told me by a friend. A naïve and open-hearted lady was complaining to my friend of the difficulty she experienced in expressing her gratification to a relative who had been blessed with a baby. "You see," naïvely said this feeling person, "I can hardly express to her how truly I experience her joy, how I the-very-opposite-of-grudge" (she needed the German

it originally meant a sharing of joy, it has degenerated into a far lighter sphere, and has become a mere word of polite language, so that the illiterate will hardly recognize the original meaning from its present use. To use that French word to convey a deep feeling would be like using the word "plaisir" in German to express deep joy. The effect is similar to what it is when Heine, after his protestation of deep feeling, bursts forth with the French "Madame, ich liebe sie !"

Now, I am inclined to believe that where there is no expression for such a feeling, and where we rarely find such feelings expressed in other ways, such feelings are not so likely to exist, and, in truth, the ideal of "good form," which cripples the nature of many young men at a time when their emotions are still developing, goes to suppress the expression of any such feelings. One may frequently hear young men express their disapproval of others; but I think that I am not making a hasty statement when I maintain that one hears young men expressing their approval of others far less frequently in England than in Germany, though it is not unmanly nor ungainly to express one's liking of a third person, and one's joy with another, and this expression may have good effects, as well upon the sociable character as upon the whole emotional nature of men.'

But "good form" and other causes are contributing to impoverish the English language in expressions of original emotions. We notice the avidity with which people grasp at slang, because it has such original life. Were it not for the wide-spread knowledge of Shakespeare, I verily believe that our emotional language would be sorely crippled. There are desirable emotions, and they can be cultivated. Language is a means of cultivating them. There is a great difference in the mental cast of those who know but one language and those who know .several, even if they have never left their home. The latter are possessed of broader vision and feeling, they have learned new feelings. When we have learned the true meanings of the French word “chic ” and the German word "Gemüthlichkeit," we may have learned something the existence of which was unknown to us before. If we can force people to express "Mitfreude we may perhaps teach some how

"gönnen") "her the blessing. Had her child died, I should have had many expressions at my service."

1 Niebuhr, the great admirer of Englishmen, has remarked: "It is quite a national trait not to dwell upon what concerns us personally, upon what fills our heart; and it is as unnatural to them to hear me speak of the topics upon which I feel strongly as it would be to do the same themselves. How I shall bless the time when this constraint will be over, when in my own land I shall listen to the joys and sorrows of others, not as a mere piece of news, but as a communication to which I have a right, and be as sure of a welcome when I lay open my own heart! I am far from attributing it to coldness in these good people. It is altogether national, and it is the same with every one I have known here, whatever their rank or calling, learning or sex."-(From "The Life and Letters of B. G. Niebuhr, with Essays, etc.," by the Chevalier Bunsen, Professors Brandis and Loebell; translated by M. Winkworth.)

to feel it. If the language is poor in expressions it can be made richer. Coining of words ought not to be condemned a priori. It is self-regulating. If a person thinks something worth thinking, or feels something worth feeling, and cannot find an adequate expression, let him coin a word-if possible, one which manifestly conveys his meaning. He will have to be careful, for the public will reject what is useless, ridicule a blunder, but perhaps adopt what is suitable.

BIOLOGY AND "WOMAN'S RIGHTS."

NINCE natural history was remodeled by Mr. Darwin it has been found capable of throwing valuable lights, previously little anticipated, upon topics quite unconnected with the origin and attributes of zoological or botanical species. Of this solidarity of the sciences-one supplying another with methods of inquiry-a striking instance is afforded by a recent work,' in which the doctrine of natural selection is successfully utilized in the study of certain political subjects. That further applications more or less analogous are still possible will scarcely be doubted. There is in particular one question now agitating human society which seems particularly to require such treatment. Every one knows that of late years a movement has sprung up to secure for women, as contradistinguished from men, certain rights, liberties, and powers, of which it is contended they have been arbitrarily and wrongfully deprived. To define this movement, and to formulate distinctly the demands of its supporters, is a scarcely possible task. Innovators and agitators of all kinds enjoy the advantage that they cannot be tied down to any fixed set of propositions by which and by whose logical consequences they are prepared to stand or fall. On the contrary, if one ground is found untenable, another is instantly taken up; what satisfies one champion of the cause is rejected by another; and what to-day is accepted as final-as in the case of the anti-vivisection movement—is to-morrow proclaimed a mere installment, and made the basis of fresh demands.

Perhaps we may best describe the movement as an attempt to obliterate all-save the purely structural-distinctions between man and woman, and to establish between them a complete identity of duties. and functions in place of that separation which has more or less hitherto always existed. That certain speakers and writers, not content with mere identification, go on to inversion, and would assign to men the particular tasks now allotted to women, though a significant fact, need not detain our attention.

It is of no use laughing at this agitation as the outcome of a mere 1 "Physics and Politics," by Walter Bagehot. ("International Scientific Series.")

"crotchet." In certain states of the moral atmosphere crotchets spread just as do epidemics-which they closely resemble-in certain conditions of the physical atmosphere and other surroundings of man. Who would attempt to deal with the cholera or the small-pox by ridicule, how pungent and incisive soever?

We purpose, therefore, to examine this movement in the light of the principles of natural selection, of differentiation, and specializa. tion, and to inquire whether the relations of the sexes in the human species and the distribution of their respective functions are or are not in general harmony with what is observed in that portion of the animal kingdom which lies nearest to man-to wit, in the Mammalia. With the origin and history of the agitation, with the hopes and motives of its supporters, and with the ethical, sentimental, economical, and political arguments used on either side we have no direct concern.

Even a very superficial and popular survey of the class Mammalia will satisfy us that the structural differences between the males and the females of each species are by no means confined to the reproductive organs. The male ruminant, whale, bat, elephant, rodent, carnivore, or ape, is on the average a larger and heavier animal than his mate. The tiger, for instance, exceeds the tigress in size by a proportion of from ten to twenty per cent. In few, if any, species is the superior stature of the male more striking than in the one which approaches man most nearly in its physical development-the gorilla.

But the mere difference in size is not all; the female is scarcely in any normal case a mere miniature copy of the male. Her proportions differ; the head and the thorax are relatively smaller, the pelvis broader, the bones slighter, and the muscles less powerful. The male in many cases possesses offensive weapons which in the female are wanting. In illustration we need only refer to the tusks of the elephant and the boar, and the horns of many species of deer. On the contrary, there is no instance of a female mammal possessing any weapon which is not also found, to at least an equal degree, in the male.

Further, the superior size of the head in the male is not merely due to the more massive osseous growth needful for the support of tusks, horns, etc., but to a proportionately larger development of brain. Thus, according to the recent investigations of M. le Bon,' "taking the mean weight of seventeen brains of human males, of 154 to 164 centimetres in height, and comparing them with the brains of seventeen women of the same stature, we find between the two a difference of 172 grammes (nearly six ounces) in favor of the male."

Summing up these facts, commonplace but not the less important, we see that in the whole mammalian class, man included, the males are distinguished from the females, not merely by larger size, but by superior cerebral and thoracic development, and by the more general possession of offensive weapons. On the other hand, trite as the remark may

1 Comptes-Rendus, lxxxvii., No. 2, p. 80.