{107} A curious instance in point will be found in the marginal reading of Malachi ii. 12, where “master, and scholar,” in the text, is marginally translated, “him that waketh, and him that answereth.” Now, we know the corresponding duties of master and scholar. The master asks his question, and then _watches_ for the reply. “Him that watcheth, and him that replieth,” would be understood by all readers. “Him that waketh, and him that answereth,” will probably seem unmeaning to nineteen out of twenty average students. {120} In this last record there is also a “Thomas le Sober.” {122} I must not let this statement pass without saying that the termination “ster” is not admitted to be feminine by all philologists; in fact, it is the subject of much contention. It will be quite sufficient for my purpose simply to draw attention to the existence of this twofold desinence in “er” and “ster,” because it occurs more frequently in the directory than the dictionary. I have had the opportunity of proving this in “English Surnames” (2nd edition, p. 380 and elsewhere), so I will only add that very often where the dictionary has dropped one form the directory has preserved it, and _vice versâ_. For instance, there are five Treachers and two Trickers in the London Directory. We do not now speak of a tricker but a “trickster.” Of course the meaning of a “treacher” or “tricker” has become forgotten or confused, otherwise our friends bearing that name would long ago have shuffled it off. Webster still has the word, but he adds that it is an obsoletism. We only talk of a beggar now, but “Joan Beggister” occurs in an old roll. It is curious to note how the weaving and dyeing of cloth have left the double forms. We only speak of a dyer now, but “Dyer” and “Dyster” figure in the London Directory. On the other hand, the dictionary has both “whiter” and “whitster,” and “thrower” and “throwster,” the directory only “Whiter” and “Thrower.” Again, the directory alone contains “Blaxter” (bleachster), the dictionary alone _bleacher_. A _litter_ of cloth (_i.e._ dyer), or a _kemper_ of wool seems never to have existed, for only “Lister” is a surname—once written “Litster”—and “Kempster.” I have already mentioned Webber and Webster. We should think it odd to hear people talk of a “_bellringster_,” or a “_breadmongster_,” or a “_washster_,” but so they did some generations ago. “Spinner” has never been a surname, nor “spinster,” but the latter had no chance on account of the secondary sense that so quickly attached to it. I cannot end this note without once more drawing the attention of philologists to the advantages of using the _directory_ as a complement to the _dictionary_.