do with the word reign. Milton wrote sovran, and Old English said forein for foreign. The majority of us, no doubt, would maintain that the word shamefaced is made up of the two words shame and faced, meaning a blushing face, or shame in the face. In fact, the word is formed in the same manner as steadfast, the Old English being shamefast. There is no reason for the h in aghast, unless to remind us of ghost, and thus to make the word more frightful. The s in island owes its origin to the ignorant belief that the word has some connection with the word isle from insula ; whereas it is the A. S. eáland, waterland. The spelling iland was current in Shakespeare's time.

Indeed if you will look into this matter, I am sure you will be surprised to find how much mere chance, ignorance, and caprice has had to do with that which we now cherish as a precious legacy. The historical and etymological character of our spelling is more than three-fourths fiction.

Says Max Müller:-" If anybody will tell me at what date we are to consider etymological spelling to begin, whether at 1500 A. D., or 1000 A. D., or at 500 A. D., I am willing to discuss the question. Till then I beg leave to say that etymological spelling would play greater havoc in English than phonetic spelling, even if we were to draw the line not more than 500 years back."

Surely these replies ought to be conclusive against the argument that a system of phonetic spelling would force us to lose sight of the history and origin of our words. 1st. If such were to be the effect, it would be no argument against the reform, since the object of language is to serve the convenience of the masses, and not to aid the student of roots and modifications. 2d. A large part of what we call the historical and etymological character of the language is a matter of error or of fiction. 3d. For the philologist, what there is of historical continuity in our speech, of true suggestiveness in the forms of our words, would be interfered with to a very slight extent, if at all: while for the great mass of English writers and speakers, that is, for those who know and care nothing about the history and origin of our words, there would be no loss whatever.

But since we are now considering the main stay of these opponents of spelling reform, another consideration should be presented which is perfectly conclusive upon this point.

These opponents seem to imagine that the moment we adopt a new mode of spelling all the old literature is to be blotted out of existence. This would not be the case at all. Of the English language we have abundant monuments, since from before the time of King Alfred. Likewise out of the vast quantities of literature which have been produced in the last three centuries, there would be most abundant monuments preserved of the present condition of our language. Is it not the height of absurdity to assert that the etymologist of the future would be put in danger of losing his trail when pursuing a fugitive root or modification? But furthermore, and the climax of the answer to these etymological objectors. "The chief difficulty with these old monuments, which we have, as illustrations of the history of the language is the fact that they are so little regardful of the phonetic principle. The Ormulum of the

Semi-Saxon period (1150–1250) is of little value for its matter. But as a linguistic monument it is of the highest value, from the fact that its author was a phonetic fanatic, and wrote his tedious poem in a consistent mode of spelling of his own, and thus throws a vast amount of light upon the condition of the spoken language of his time."-Whitney.

Prof. March, in his address as President of the American Philological Association, in 1874, makes this assertion, and it cannot be disputed. "A changeless orthography destroys the material for etymological study, and written records are valuable to the philologist just in proportion as they are accurate records of speech as spoken from year to year." Thus, if the would-be friends of the etymologist, wish to do him the greatest injury possible; if they wish to increase his labor in the future by tenfold, and then to make that labor worthless, all they have to do is to allow the divergence to continue to increase between our written and spoken language; - to prevent the adoption of a phonetic system of spelling. On the other hand, if they wish to be of infinite service to the student of language in the centuries to come, as the author of the Ormulum has done the greatest service for the student of to-day, they will become advocates of the phonetic reform.

Another objection to phonetic spelling can soon be disposed of. It would then be impossible by the eye to discriminate between words which are pronounced alike but have a different spelling and meaning; for example, meet, meat, and mete; to, too, and two. How little we really depend upon this difference will be seen when we consider how many cases there are in which words of different meanings are spelled and pronounced alike, and yet without causing us the slightest trouble. We have found, to find, to establish, and to mold or cast; cleave, to stick together, and to part asunder; bear, bruin, and to carry; box, a chest, a slap, to sail round, a seat in the theatre, the drivers seat on a coach, and a kind of wood. Who is ever puzzled for a moment to know how to understand these words. It is the connection of the word, and not its form, upon which the mind rests for its interpretation. Right, rite, write, and wright all sound alike; and if in the hurry of conversation we have no trouble in deciding what is meant, how could there be any danger in the slow process of reading a sentence? We really have not the slightest need of these homonymous words, and could well spare them.

I have thus indicated the character of the answer which philologists. return to these two main arguments; that the spelling reform would destroy the science of etymology and take away all historical associations. Every item given is drawn or quoted from the highest authority. Nothing has been advanced upon my own investigation or conclusions.

Now, are not these answers most satisfactory and triumphant? If you will look into the matter you will find that all of these learned arguments against phonetic spelling amount to nothing. There is absolutely but one argument against it; and that is one worthy of most respectful attention, and of more candid presentation than any anti-reformers have thought it worth while to give to it. That argument is not one of principle at all, but of pure and simple conservatism. The language is ours; we have learned it. With all of its imperfections, it accomplishes its

purpose. We have become so accustomed to its anomalies that they have ceased to trouble us, it may be. This argument is a valid one, and has weight; and there is no other one to stand by its side.

Admitting this argument, the question reduces to this: Are the advantages to be gained sufficient to justify us in attempting to overthrow a system every item of which is consecrated by usage and enshrined in predilection?

Time permits me to mention but a few of the arguments in favor of a simplification of our spelling.

In the first place there is the practical inconvenience which we suffer both in learning and using the language. This is one of the weightiest matters, and appeals especially to us as teachers. And yet we have become so accustomed to the burden that we hardly realize how much of our learning time is taken up with mastering orthographical intricacies. We do not realize how much harder it is for us to learn to read at all, in the first place; and then how much harder it is for us to read and write readily and correctly, than it would be if we wrote as we speak. What a relief it would be if we were sure of the pronunciation of every word we meet, and of the spelling of every word we wish to use! How much time and patience would be saved in the school-room if spelling-book and spelling-lessons could become things of the past!

Then look also at the difficulties which foreigners encounter in trying to acquire our language. "The English language, from the simplicity of its grammatical structure, would be one of the easiest in the world to learn if it were not for its abominable spelling. As it is, a stranger may acquire the spoken tongue by mouth and ear; or he may acquire the written tongue by grammar and dictionary. But in either case, one tongue being learned, the other tongue will be almost as strange to him as if he had never heard or seen its counterpart. He really has to acquire two different Languages."-Whitney. The education of the Freedmen and the Indians in our own country is hindered by our eccentric spelling more than by any other one cause. The spread of the English language in China and Japan is greatly retarded by the same cause. Missionaries complain that the missionary work of the world is hindered by our irregular spelling. If we wish the English language to spread, and to become the world-language, we have no right to hand it down to posterity, as Prof. Whitney says, with such a millstone about its neck.

2d. We may laugh as we will at this matter of spelling reform as expressed in dollars and cents; but this pecuniary argument is by no means an insignificant one. In the first place consider that all teachers below the high school grades have to spend from to of their time in teaching our children to read and spell. These teachers receive from 30 to 60 dollars per month. On the lowest estimate, there is thus spent $50 per year, in the case of every teacher, for the drill work in reading and spelling, of which work, at least is made necessary by our absurd and irregular orthography. In Cincinnati there are 500 teachers to whom this estimate will apply. There you have $25,000 per year spent in a way that is unnecessary, and which might be saved or turned to some good account. There are, at least $15,000,000 spent in our country every

year in the effort to teach a system of spelling that is false; in which instead of utilizing natural forces, and proceeding according to the current of the child's common sense, we labor directly against it. And to make the matter worse, when the money is spent, and the instruction given, our children after all are not enabled to read and spell their own language. Then look at the matter of printing. Upon the most moderate reform, omitting simply silent and unnecessary letters, about 7 per cent of the number of letters is saved, consequently saving 7 per cent of the cost of type-setting and book-making. We look upon 7 per cent as a good rate upon investments. Is it not worth while to attend to it here? Suppose $15,000,000 is the annual cost of production in book making (that is certainly low), and there would be a saving of $1,050,000. Suppose newspapers and periodicals cost $50,000,000 per annum. Here would be a saving of $3,500,000. But more than this. All this matter has first to be written; and here our 7 percent saving must come into the account again. Is there not something in this dollar-and-cent view of the case worth considering?

3. In the third place, a consistent spelling would awaken and educate the phonetic sense of the community. "As things are now, the English speaker comes to the study of a foreign written language at a disadvantage when compared with those to whom other tongues are native. He has been accustomed to regard it as only natural and proper that any given sound should be written in a variety of ways, and that any given sign should possess a number of different sounds. It requires a special education to give him an inkling of the truth that every letter of our alphabet had originally, and still preserves in the main outside of our own language, a single unvarying sound. That the phonetic sense of the community needs training, there is no better evidence than the fact that the English speaker has his sense of the fitness of things so debauched by a vicious training, that he is capable of regarding an historical spelling as preferable to a phonetic spelling; that he can possibly think it better to write our words as we imagine somebody else pronounced them a long time ago, than as we pronounce them ourselves."-Whitney.

4. Instead of a phonetic spelling contributing to the alteration and damage of the language, as is charged, "it would exert a conserving influence and tend to uniformity and fixedness of pronunciation. So loose and uncertain is now the tie between writing and utterance, that existing differences of pronunciation hide themselves under the cover of an orthography which fits them all equally well. The largest part of our conservative force is spent upon the visible form alone. We do not give much heed to the audible form. We have spelling matches in abundance but not pronunciation matches. Whereas if the spelling and the pronunciation were more strictly in accord, every effort to preserve the spelling would likewise tend to perpetuate the pronunciation. A phonetic orthography would become an authoritative and intelligible standard of pronunciation, and thus directly tend to remove the more marked differences of usage between cultivated speakers of different localities." Thus, phonetic spelling, instead of having a destructive tendency, would operate as a protector and preserver of our English tongue.

5. In the fifth place, looking at this matter in a strictly educational point of view, there is an argument more serious than all others. "It is the actual mischief done by subjecting young minds to the illogical and tedious drudgery of learning to read and write English as spelt at present. Everything they have to learn in spelling and pronunciation is irrational; one rule contradicts another, and each statement has to be accepted simply on authority, and with a complete disregard of all those rational instincts which lie dormant in the child, and which it is the highest function of education to awaken by every kind of healthy exercise. "I know," continues Max Müller, "there are persons who can defend anything, and who hold that it is due to this very discipline that the English character is what it is; that it retains respect for authority; that it does not require a reason for everything; and that it does not admit that what is inconceivable is therefore impossible. Even English orthodoxy has been traced back to this hidden source. A child accustomed to believe that t-h-o-u-g-h is though and that th-r-o-u-g-h is through, will afterwards believe anything." Does not Lord Lytton, from this stand-point, express the matter most justly when he characterizes our system as a “lying, roundabout, puzzle-headed delusion, confusing the clear instincts of truth, and bone of the Devil"? I will not maintain that this system is responsible for all the lying we encounter, but I do believe that, in a large measure, it is responsible for the puzzle-headed children who are such a common product in our schools. It was well said by an eminent speaker in the London Conference, May 27, that no person in full possession of his faculties, and in full exercise of his common sense, could spell the English language. "The child can put no trust in the symbol-he cannot believe his eyes; he can put no trust in the sound, he cannot believe his ears." Many a truant might defend himself, if he but understood his case. No child can find delight in doing that which, contradicts his natural instincts and feelings of analogy. If his common sense must be left outside of the school-room door, what child is not justified in staying outside that he may keep company with his birthright. We pretend that the main object of education is to develop the reasoning powers; to impart the power of forming judgments. And yet how the very first subject that we study belies our pretense and our purpose. There is no attainment so hard to acquire as learning to read; and there is nothing which has so little value for us as a means of sound mental discipline.

(Concluded in October number.)