The third stanza runs:

"If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe-
Such boasting as the Gentiles use,

Or lesser breeds without the law."

Now the intoxication of power is far from being the greatest cause that God is not held in awe. But we concede that the figure, "drunk with power," as well as "wild tongues," however faulty and out of place in church music, is one quite natural to a poet that has used substantially these figures so frequently, directly or inferentially, in his writings. It is somewhat amusing to hear a congregation singing about the "wild tongues," when defiance of God's power is meant.

The poet further says: "Still stands thine ancient sacrifice, an humble and a contrite heart." Now, the figure of a standing heart is as beautiful as it is ture that ancient sacrifices are still acceptable offerings to the Lord.

Again, "Such boasting as the Gentiles use" is certainly so indefinite that the real force is quite lost. Besides a great many peoples may be classed as Gentiles. There are also many species of boasting: one nation boasts of its navy, another of its army, another of its financial system, another of its public schools, its state sovereignty and personal liberty, etc. Would the poet contrast all

this with the humility of that very historic people, the Jews?

The elegance of the phrase, "lesser breeds," is not to be questioned; but just who the lesser breeds are, is, of course, left purposely indefinite.

Again, does the poet mean to petition the Lord God of Hosts to scourge the Gentile nations of the world occasionally, "Lest we forget"? Or is the petition meant to have the scourging averted? Divines generally concede that a petition to the throne of grace to be efficacious, should have at least the virtue of definiteness.

Again, lest we forget what? That we hold dominion over palm and pine under a God of battles?

The tumult and the shouting dies

The captains and the Kings depart-
Still stands thine ancient sacrifice," &c.

Now, we submit that the most natural sense in which "still" is to be taken in its present connection, is that it is equivalent to "nevertheless," which makes it appear that "the captains and kings" were battling in opposition to this “ancient sacrifice," or against the "Lord of our far-flung battle line." This, however, is not justice to the captains and the kings who warred for the establishment, maintenance, and spread of religious ideas in accordance with God's plan of salvation and worship.

In fine, we think a careful scrutiny of the little poem, notwithstanding the fame it has won for its author, will convince the thoughtful that it is made up mainly of vague generalities and awkward phrases.

In concluding this criticism in detail, we express the opinion that if you will only take the trouble to read a goodly number of Kipling's ballads and ditties at a single sitting, you will grow so tired of the style-the same satirical strain of the one, and the same sing-song swing you are mentally thrown into as you go lilting along through the other—that you experience a well marked relief, long coveted, when you throw the book aside. Even the creditably humorous turns the verses take now and then, or even an occasional "FuzzyWuzzy," pleasantly thrown in whole, brings only momentary relief. If the reading be at eve, you are in danger of retiring with some scrap of a chorus, such as "Back to the army again," "Back to the army again," "Tommy this and Tommy that," or "Whoopee! Sick 'em, puppy," in dulcet sounds a Gunga Dinning in your ears.

Suppose, too, that the dramatis personæ of Shakespeare's plays were only officers, soldiers, sailors, musicians, clowns and fools-Falstaffs, Pistols, Shallows and Bottoms-certainly great

genius would be required to parade these human beings in order on a mental stage, and at the same time exhibit their real nature and strongest traits. But who would care even for that perfidious character, Iago, were the rash Othello and the gentle Desdemona "left out"? Or who would go "o'er the vasty deep as o'er a brook" to see the "dog Jew"? or the perfidious Iago? or the conceited but humorous Falstaff? It is not enough that these noteworthy characters demand great genius to delineate them. It is not enough that the Tommy Atkinses, McAndrews, Mulhollands, Annes of Austria, and "Mary, Pity Women," are real characters, made to exhibit their best and worst traits in their own coarse language and ways. The reason is evident: we soon grow tired of these "lesser breeds without the law." Few would care for "Hamlet with Hamlet left out."

Hence, we concede, that if the future does not consider Mr. Kipling merely an adventurous poetaster, it will at least esteem him no great poet, and that time will assign his ballads, verses and ditties alike to an "impartial oblivion."

CHAPTER VIII.

CORDELIAS OR "DELILAHS"-WHICH?

True sister of the Son of Man;

True sister of the Son of God;

What marvel that she leads the van

Of those who in the path He trod,
Still bear the cross and wear the ban?

J. G. Holland.

HE menial part women are made to play in

Mr. Kipling's verse really merits censure, it seems to us. It would be considered an insufficient apology that he has treated the sexes on a par, for treating them on a par by celebrating in verse the coarse and even wicked elements of each sex is a graver injustice to woman's sex as a whole than to man's. That the mind cannot be divested of the wrong impression, is a conclusion which can be sustained by an argument unanswerable. We sometimes hear it said women fall lower than men. This is not true. But we think the same crimes and like pollutions are often fraught with more serious consequences to individuals, and bring greater and more lasting shame to society when committed by the gentler sex, which is no doubt partly due to the much less frequency of their crimes. So, an author who never sees the queens