_Special to Our Readers_
In this number, we have put the war articles last, giving them
the place of second emphasis, and at the cost of cutting into the
Casserole, because at the time the table of contents was made up,
we considered the topic of our first article, Free Speech, of more
consequence than any War possible among civilized nations. But we did
not then suppose that one of the nations we considered civilized was
capable of stamping on treaties, violating neutralities, dropping
unnotified bombs on cities, and, if late reports are true, guiding the
Turk in another assault on civilization.
Resistance to such infamies we regard as of more pressing importance
than even the main object to which our leading articles have been
heretofore devoted, namely, the elevation of the humbler man. We
even regard that as, in the long run, the most effective agency
toward Peace. But sometimes in emergencies, the long run has to be
disregarded. Thus, not the least of the bad effects of the war is
its diversion of effort from the social and political amelioration
to which, for a generation, the world has given a degree of interest
without precedent in all previous history. From this cause, where we
would have our peculiar function the saving one of a brake, even our
own humble efforts must be considerably diverted by an emergency so
overwhelming; and we know that our readers, despite their inclination
for the still air of delightful studies, can not fail to respond to so
general and poignant an interest.
* * * * *
Buzzing around this subject, one of our most valued contributors
writes: “Please don’t print a _peace article_. There are only two
possible kinds of peace in this world, while man is man: the peace of
exhaustion and the _pax romana_.”
How prophecy does rage on this subject--on both sides!
Which peace with each other did the chief European nations enjoy from
1871 to 1914, and the English speaking nations from 1814 to 1914? And
we seem abundantly justified in hoping that it may be permanent.
“While man is man.” Which man--Homer’s,--butchering unarmed foes whom
he finds in bathing; or today’s,--arbitrating most of his quarrels,
and busying himself over schemes for the automatic settlement of the
rest? Any one who fails to recognize the change in man, may well fail,
especially at a time like this, to recognize the increasing peace and
aids to peace among the nations. Between civilized peoples, war comes
now mainly because of one decaying institution--autocratic government,
and of one vanishing human peculiarity--the madness of the crowd--the
readiness of men to do in mass what they scorn to do as individuals--to
get excited over foolish causes, or no cause at all, and to find glory
in doing at wholesale, work which, at retail, they shrink from as
robbery and murder.
_Academic Courtesy_
A certain college professor was asked by a lawyer for technical
information needed in a property case. The professor spent half a day
in disentangling the material and putting it into practicable shape.
With it he presented a bill for $25.00.
Was this sensible or shocking?--business or betrayal? The lawyer,
who seems in no way to have begrudged the money, told the tale as an
instance of vulgar commercialism worming its ugly way into the fair
ethics of the academic profession. And with him doubtless most college
professors themselves would agree, even in the face of his confession
that for any scraps of legal information formally sought by the
professor a lawyer would charge a fee.
To a layman the case for the defence seems simple. Here is no shining
opportunity for the idealism of the scientist who, preferring to give
to humanity the fruit of his works, refuses to patent discoveries made
in the university laboratory. Nor is there in such an instance any
question of aid to a disinterested “seeker after truth.” A professor
of Greek will gravely spend several hours in answering a village
clergyman’s question about the New Testament “baptism.” The historian
himself will take the free hours of several days to make out reading
lists for a woman’s club. But why should one man who is making his
living give time and work freely to another man who is going to use
them to increase his earnings? The professor’s salary, unadorned by
inherited capital or wife’s dower or extra work, is not a living wage.
He has to endure the annual appeal to humanitarian alumni to consider
his needs, the reiterated disclosures of his poor economies and poorer
expenditures. Why should he not take from a lawyer’s pocket, rather
than from a “donor’s,” in return for desirable goods, money which will
pay part of his expenses to the next meeting of that learned society
before which he is to read an unmarketable paper?
Why, indeed? we seem to hear the college professor echo. There is
no reason save that he likes learning without courtesy, as little
as religion without charity--and courtesy, like charity, makes no
exceptions.
_Simplified Spelling_
While Germany is fighting in disregard of International Law, and the
allies fighting in its defence, it is a good time to impress a very
powerful consideration for simplifying English spelling.
Probably the strongest reason why International Law has developed so
much more slowly than law in the separate nations, has been the greater
difficulty of the nations understanding each other, and this is
rapidly disappearing under increased facilities of intercommunication.
Apparently there is no agency in sight which would promote this as much
as an international language. Many considerations nominate English
for the place: not only do more people speak it already than speak
any other civilized language; but quite probably more people not
born to it, speak it. Of all civilized languages, it is by far the
simplest in its inflections and the richest in its vocabulary, and
contains most words already contained in other languages. As a possible
world-language, it far surpasses them all, except in the difficult
inconsistencies of its spelling; and many devoted men, including
virtually all the leading authorities, are now working hard to remedy
these, perhaps their strongest motive being, as it is that of their
most generous supporter, the interests of peace.
* * * * *
And now for a few words regarding some details of the simplification,
which wil contain a few examples of mildly impruuvd forms, insted of
the most outrageusly inconsistent of the uzual wons. Those we uze wil
be inconsistent enuf in all consience.
Of experienses discuraging to those who favor the reform, the worst we
hav encounterd has been in the letrs from members of the Simplified
Spelling Board which hav bin evoked by our articls. Probably not one in
five of those letrs has containd any new forms whatever, or at least
enuf to be notist. If the anointed aposls of the reform don’t bac it up
any betr than that, those who oppose it hav occasion to rejoise. On the
other hand, the letrs from som of the faithful who really wer faithful,
wer deliberately impruuvd until they wer very funny, tho very probably
our grandchildren woud not find anything funny in them.
If the reform ever coms, it now seems most likely to com thru peepl
getting so familiar with the milder impruuvd forms in correspondence,
advertisments, and prospectuses, that they wil be reddy to giv their
children a consistent scooling.
In such ways, and thru argument and right reson, probably there may gro
up, in time, approval enuf to start the better forms in som scools,
and when that is don, the spred and establishment of such forms seems
inevitabl.
But there wil be som difficultys that ar obvius even now. Inevitably
at this stage, experts ar qarreling among themselvs, tho qarreling is
hardly the term: for the differenses ar in the best of temper. It is a
question whether enuf new forms ar yet agreed upon, even by those who
attemt thurro and consistent reform, to make possibl a scool-bouk that
woud succeed. The foregoing sentence givs som illustrations. The word
we spel as _thurro_ is spelt by the S. S. B. as _thoro_, and by the S.
S. S. as _thuro_. The word we spel _woud_ is spelt by the S. S. S. as
_wood_, and the S. S. B. leavs it alone, after som tentativ votes that
resulted in _wud_. _Wood_ is excellent if identity with present practis
wer desirabl, but if _wood_ is right (_riit?_), how about _food_ and
_door_, and how, in any case, about using _o_ to express a _u_ sound?
The S. S. S. setls part of the difficulty by keeping _wood_ as now, and
making _food_ = _fuud_, and _door_ = _doer_. The present _doer_ (won
who duz) it makes _duer_. With _fuud_ and _duer_ we agree; but with
_doer_ for _door_ we don’t: we think _door_ as it is, is as good as
possibl, and think that _coast_, _ghost_, _globe_, _lore_, etc., would
be vastly impruuvd if they wer made uniform and to agree with door,
thus: _coost_, _goost_, _gloob_, _loor_.
It is a question wether reform had betr wait for a betr agrement of
experts, or wether there is now enuf agrement to justify anybody’s
going ahed with his share of it, and such personal extras as his
consience reqires (_reqiirs_?) him to ad; and letting everybody’s
personal extras fight (_fiit_?) it out to a survival of the fittest.