Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1871-08-23
PET NAMES.

We heartily join our contemporaries
in remonsttance against the modifi-
cation of feminine names that is now
in progress. Not only In marriage
notices, where a hint Of affcctionate
familiarity is deemed appropriate, even
before tho public, but in the formal
catalogues OF schools and colleges, we
find all the young ladies designated,
by endearing diminutives-pct namec
they are called. We have several cat
alogucs on our table, in which the
Seniors, Juniors, and Freshmen zig
that the word y are Maggies, Bcssies,
Hatties, Louics, Nellies, Carries, Fan.
nics, Callies, Cassics, Georges, Sallies,
Lizzics, Adde'S, Aggics, Gcrties, Mil
lies, Jeannies, Lilies, and tho like.
Only one old name seems to hold it's
own, and that probably, because tho
familiar form Of !: has rather too
homcly sound to satisfy romantic
taste we find Mary is never called
Molly. One Mamie we find, but this
is so like Nanny, that most young
ladies will prefer to be called Mary in
the earlier stages OF their lives. We
do not know, indeed, at what stage
these pet names are conferred. Is il
at the baptismal font? Could min.
listers keep solemn countenance if
asked publicly to name girl Hattie,
George or Lizzie. To us it would
sound like christening a boy Bob, Bill,
or Jim. We fancy that it is not their
sponsors in baptism, but the young
ladies themselves, who have devised
these aliases under which they intend
to take the degree OF Master 0. Arts,
or, we suppose, with them It will be
Mistress of Hearts" To us, accus.
toned 10 ascribe some gravity to
scholastic bonors, they do not seem to
accord well with these endcarng or
familiar names. Yet habit is every
thing in these matters. We have not
yet been accustomed to catalogues of
schools for boys, or colleges for young
men, in which it is thought elegant
to designate them as Jakey, Sammy,
Tommy, or Bob, Mike, Joe, &c. Do
the ladies think that would be prcttyy
Imagine q grave President of a college
comforting the highest honors on Billy
Smith, or calling up Jack somebody
to deliver the valedictoryl We think
we may speak for the male sex when
we say that this endearing or familiar
style, pleasant enough in private, and
particular cases, is utterly ridiculous
in public, and in common, formal use.
Falstaff lays down when he is to be
called Jack and when Sir John, but
the distinction is plain enough among
men. Occasionally some vulgarian
thinks he makes point by affecting
a public familiarity with some eminent
character. Sometimes in a Radical
paper, an eminent jurist and ex chief
Justice of Pennsylvania, whose person
al character would add dignity to tho
highest Office, is flppantly styled Jerry
Black But this is not likely TO provoke
imitation. The ladies still have the
present familiar style as their special
feminine fashion. We hope it will
have no longer life than most fashions.
Indeed, to be just we must add that
among the pamphlets on our table is
the catalogue OF the New York Medi
cal College for Women, in which we
are pleased to find our old acquaint-
anccs, Sarah, Martha, Emma, Susan,
and Jane. We are glad to see that
they survive. Long life to them
Whether it is the better taste, or the
graver pursuits of these ladies that
determines their choice, we are glad
to find that except the, perhaps, ad-
missible Fannie, all bear names, like
Webster's dictianary, unabridged"
and they do not want their patients
or the public to "call them pet names