It is less dificult to understand why certain English words have come to acquffe in the course of time a meaning diametrically oppo: site to the original, than to comprehend why a number of archaic terms are retained in modern usage }while others are consigned to limbo, 3 an example of the first, we may the word "let," although this is still employed in its original intention, as in the phrase, "without let or hindrance." In the second Jcategory fall those collective nouns descriptive of aggregations of fauna land the like. A "gaggle" (original. ly spelled gagle, and discourteously Despit applied to both women and geese), has yielded to "flock" in both cases. Two pheasants still constitute "brace," though two ducks are "couple," and two fowls a "pair Sheep continue to congregate in flocks, and cattle and deer in herds, the other hand, a "barras of horses," a "ray of' colts," and a "lope of leopards," no longer obtain, del the last named, no doubt, owing to. the rarity with which leopards are Jencountered in daily life. A "muster of peacocks," is fast becoming obsolete, while a "litter of puppies," kindle of Kittens" are still current, the last, however, a bucolic loguialism, Many' of the olde fashioned terms, notably, a "pride a Msloth of bears," a route of wolves," a°"labour of moles," a "'skulk' of foxes (and Fria and a "shrewdness faves," have gone by the board, This system of terminology has a specific allure, and might be amplified to apply to certain local condi tions. Thus, a "gossip of house servants," a "clamour of _riesha coolies," a "battle of tuchuns," and "foul of smells," would all' serve fas particularly appropriate collec tives,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.