I:ALOOY. 



OBHXRALi 



ic. Of U>6 male suflix, other example* may be seen in 

 enUurii>*; caupo-, jalco*-, patv*-, ic. ; the lait of which may be com- 

 pared with the Greek TOM-I, and the Engliah pta-cofk. The moat 

 froquent suffix in the Greek language to denote the feminine ii the 

 syllable M, aa in Gotnaaa, ciAiaira, and the participles nnrrorroa. the 

 parent of rvrrtvta, TiKptltrraa, afterword* rv$0<iir. The aamn nuttix 

 u found in the Gothic, ai yoitm, copra ; and in Gorman, as /am, a 

 Imll, jartr, a cow. Our own language too is familiar with what U 

 probably the lame suffix in teamttr-ru, laundf-ea (from larcader-ea). 

 lu the Greek language this suffix appears at times to have lost its 

 sibilant, as was so common in that language. Hence the forms 3"iA- 

 ia, a<-ia, TTv^M/-ia, for rtTufor-u. 



In the Latin language a mere vowel a, but originally a long a, at is 

 proved by the Sanscrit, by the oblique cases of the Latin first declen- 

 sion, and in old Latin even by the nominative, for the forms oquili, 

 tancti jUia, Ac., occur in the earliest poets, while the Greek too has 

 not a few nominatives with a long . But the forms tcriba, incula. lea., 

 with the numerous proper names, CVnxa, Sulla, &c., prove that tlio 

 notion of the female was not inherent in this declension ; and probably 

 the fact was that there co-existed in primeval Indo-European language 

 two dialects, one preferring a, the other o (precisely as in our own 

 island, there are tie two forms taw ami tu-, >ch-> and who, one and 

 one) ; and secondly, that by a false refinement in language, an arbitrary 

 distinction of gender waa set up between them. The same argument 

 of course applies to the Greek form <rya0j-i and oyoSa or oyafrj. in 

 which it must be carefully recollected that the sibilant at the end of 

 070801 has nothing to do with the question, as it is simply the represen- 

 tative of the nominative case. It should also be recollected that the 

 older Greek language abounds in the common adjectives, such aa 4 and 

 ^ oBararos. Moreover the advocates of an original distinction of 

 gender in tho two first declensions have to explain the anomalies of 

 if Mo, &c., and the ^ Latin /</*, &c. Again, that the Latin forms 

 bomi- and lima- were originally but dialectic varieties appears to be 

 established by the consideration that nearly all derivatives from the 

 second declension take an a, as all/are, aware, Ac., a strange con- 

 sequence of which is, that the Latin language is almost wholly de- 

 prived of a conjugation of verbs in 9 corresponding to the Ureek 

 tju\o-a. It is another strange fact, that in Gothic the forms in a are 

 masculine, those in o feminine. 



Lastly, every language has the power of denoting gender by the 

 addition of a distinct word, as in jack-tnipe, cack-tparror, tom-cat. 

 This use of the names of men is seen in other languages besides our 

 own. Thus the Anglo-Saxon employs carl for this purpose. In the 

 German tawbtrich ijaiuerich, it would be wrong, however tempting, to 

 asume that the past crirk is the prenomen ; we should rather divide 

 the words so as to give to er the notion of a male, and to ic'i that 

 of a diminutive. Thus Idub-er-ich in the " little-male-dove." Violent 

 corruptions of this form exist in our tongue in lark, abbreviated from 

 lattrock, a term still used in Scotland ; and drake from andrakt, itself a 

 corruption from aaat-er-oci: 



The suffix tttr of our own language marks a female agent, and still 

 preserves the sense in tpintter. The words battler, v clutter, Iromlrr, 

 refer to offices not ill-suited to the female, but they have now dis- 

 appeared as appellatives, and are employed, in England at least, solely 

 as surnames. The male terms which correspond to them are of cour.-<o 

 baker, wearer, brtieer. It is in the Dutch that the best evidence exists 

 to show that tier is truly a suffix to denote female agents. 



Nothing has been said of suffixes to denote the neuter gender; 

 simply because there exist, strictly speaking, no such suffixes. There 

 are indeed appearances of such additions ; first, in the Greek neuters 

 ayaSor, and the Latin bomim ; secondly, in the neuter pronouns of the 

 Latin language terminating with a d, which correspond to an * in 

 German and a t in English ; as quod, mu, what ; id, a, il, Ac. Of the 

 first clan it is enough perhaps to throw out a suspicion that the m and 

 d (, I) were originally part of the stem of the noun, and no case- 

 ending. 



In the Scandinavian languages, as now existing, the genders have 

 a peculiar character, consisting of a neuter, if gender it can be called, 

 and a common gender, which includes the masculine and fcinimm-. 

 By strange accident, the definite and indefinite articles have here a 

 common form, and are distinguished solely by their position. Thus 

 the word one or an, as written by us, is represented by en m. or f.. tt 

 n. ; while the definite article, of the same form, but no way related to 

 it, is attached as an enclitic. Thus we have in Danish for the common 

 gender: en maud, "a man," mnndm. "the man;" en qttinde, "a 

 woman," iindn, " the woman," en (lay, " a day," dnyrn, "the day;" 

 and for the neuter, ft lam, "a lamb," lamtnrl, " the lamb ;" et ord, " a 

 word," ordtt, " the word." The en tt of the definite article may be 

 compared with the forms r of ty-Qtr, in of the Latin i-rfr, and our 

 own <t. 



SKA LOGY. [Pumonra.] 



N'KUA, in ancient Greek music, were of three kind*, the 

 Diatonic, Chromatic, and Enharmonic. [DIATOMT; CIIIUIMATII : K-. 

 HARMOftlc.l These were sulxlividi-d into many species, which are 

 enumerated by Gatidentins and Arbtoxeon*. " Indeed," says Sir J. 

 Hawkins, " the representations of the genera and their species, as well 

 by diagrams as in words, are almost as numerous as the writers on 



wishes for more information on a subject in which so few now take 

 the slightest interest. The modern diatonic and chromatic genera, or 

 sealee, are probably much the same aa, or nearly allied to, those of 

 antiquity. Our Enharmonic is, practically, at least on most instru- 

 ment*, but a convenient evasion, the mere bestowal of two names on 

 one and the same sound. 



GENERAL, the title of the highest rank conferred on military officers. 

 In all the states of r.urn|>e it indicate* the commander in-chief of the 

 forces of the nation ; the commander of an army or grand division, and 

 also those who, under the hitter, exercise his functions, with the 

 particular designations of lieutenant-general and major-general. 



The origin of the title appears in the history of France, in which 

 country it seems to have been conferred on the commander of the 

 royal army about the middle of the 15th century, when something 

 like a regular military force was first established in Europe. Tic- 

 kings were then considered as holding the chief command of the army 

 by virtue of their birth ; and, on appointing persona under them to 



a general superintendence of the forces, they gave t- 

 Officers the title of lieutenant-yen rut, in order to designate at the same 

 time the extent of their duties and on the sovereign 



whom they represented. By a decree made in the year 1450, in tlie 

 reign of Charles VII., John, count of Duuois, was so qualified 

 the title of lieutenant-general, denoting the immediate commander in- 

 chief of an army, was long retained in the French service. In the 

 course of time, by an abbreviation in language, the prefix of the title 

 was omitted, and the term ycucral alone waa applied to persons holding 

 such command. 



Previously to the epoch above mentioned the title of Grand Seneehal 

 of France appears to have conferred the right of commanding the royal 

 armies ; but the dignity being hereditary in the counts of Anjou, when 

 that province passed to the crown of hnpland in the reign of Henry 

 II., the right ceased, and the kings of France delegated their authority 

 to noblemen chosen at pleasure. In 1218 Philip Augustus con 

 the command on Mathieu de Montmorenci, the Con.stal.le uf France; 

 and the successors of that high office held it till the re-forui.it 

 the army in the reign of Charles VII. 



It must be remarked, however, that at a period more early than that 

 of the creation of lieutenant-generals under the sovereign, the t 

 captain-general had been conferred on certain officers with military 

 jurisdiction over particular districts. This species of command is sup- 

 posed to have been first instituted in 1349 by Philip of Valois, who 

 placed Guy de Nele, already Marcchal de France, over the district of 

 Xaiutonge ; within which he was authorised to inspect the castles and 

 fortified towns, and to superintend all the military affairs. The nature 

 of the duty therefore seems to have resembled that of the general 

 officers now appointed to particular divisions of this country and the 

 .-..loiiies. But in 1635, that is, about eight years after the suppression 

 of the post of constable of France, Louis XIII. gave the title of captain- 

 general, for the army of Italy, to the Duke of Savoy ; and this appoint- 

 mcnt was precisely that of commander-in-chief, since it placed the duke 

 above the Marccbal de Crequi, who was previously at the head of the 

 army. 



It is about this time that the term lieutenant-general, in the sense 

 which it now bears, first appears. For, according to 1. who 



quotes the history of Cardinal Richelieu for the fact, whin the Prince 

 of Coiide was made commander-in-chief of the army destined against 

 Spain, the Marquis de la Force was appointed his linitiniini-^ 

 and M. de Feuqucres held the some rank under the Due de Longucville, 

 who was to act with an army in Franche-Coinpte'. We have In 

 one lieutenant-general for each army : but the writer above mentioned 

 observes that, during the reign of Louis XIV., the armies of France 

 being much more numerous Ulan before, the officers were also greatly 

 multiplied; and adds that, in 1/04, there were more than sixty lio 

 had the title of lieutenant-general 



The title of captain-general above mentioned must not be confounded 

 with that which was created by Cardinal Richelieu, in 1056, in 

 of the Marquis de Castelnaut : this officer was placed above the lieu- 

 tenant-generals of the army, but was subordinate to the marshal of 

 France, who commanded in chief ; and it appears that some of the 

 former having retired from the service in disgust, in consequence of the 



tlieeardin.il was obliged to appoint others in 

 i 



In the reign of Francis I. the title of colonel-general was instituted : 

 and it was first in 1544 conferred on M. de Taix, with the command of 

 all the infantry of the nation. The title existed however only to the 

 time of Louis XIV., by whom it was abolished. 



The English nation" has nearly followed the practice. 

 matters appertaining to the military service. Thus the lonlhiph non- 

 stable and the lord mariOial of England, in former times, were at tho 

 head of the military establishments "' '!' "d when the first 



office was suppressed by Henry VIII. in l.'c'l. the title of captain- 

 general appears to have" been adopted for the comtnandei u 



tie occurs in the list of the army which non-oil at St. Quint in in 

 ; which list a copy is given by (Jrose from a MS. in the I 

 MI. From the same list it appears that o lieutenant 

 the whole army was immediately subordinate to the former ; ai 

 under the last was t general of horse, a captain-general of foot, with 

 his lieutenant, and ft serjeant-major (corresponding to a present major- 



