hand and _fancy_ on the other, and either _phantasy_ or _fantasy_; yet
all these words are derived from the same Greek root. Probably _phancy_
would seem as absurd to most of us as _fantom_. Yet _fantasy_ has only
recently begun to get the better of _phantasy_. The Italians are bolder
than we are, for they have not hesitated to write _filosofia_ and
_fotografia_. To most of us _fotografer_, as we read it on a sign in
Union Square, seems truly outlandish; and yet if our great-grandfathers
were willing to accept _fancy_ there is no logical reason why our
great-grandchildren may not accept _fotografy_. There is no longer any
logical basis for opposition on the ground of scholarship. Indeed,
the scholarly opposition to these orthographic simplifications is
not unlike the opposition in Germany to the adoption of the Roman
alphabet by those who cling to the old Gothic letter on the ground
that it is more German, altho it is in reality only a medieval
corruption of the Roman letter. With those who speak German, as with
those who speak English, the chief obstacle to the accomplishment of
proposed improvements in writing the language is to be found in the
general ignorance of its history--or perhaps rather in that conceited
half-knowledge which is always more dangerous than modest ignorance.
To diffuse accurate information about the history of English
orthography is the most pressing and immediate duty now before those
of us who wish to see our spelling simplified. We must keep reminding
those we wish to convince that we want their aid in helping along the
movement which has in the past changed _musique_ to _music_, _riband_
to _ribbon_, _phantasy_ to _fantasy_, _æra_ to _era_, _phænomenon_
to _phenomenon_, and which in the present is changing _catalogue_
to _catalog_, _æsthetic_ to _esthetic_, _programme_ to _program_,
_technique_ to _technic_.
There never has been any “regular” spelling accepted by everybody, or
any system of orthography sustained by universal convention. To assume
that there is anything of the sort is adroitly to beg the very question
at issue. There are always in English many words the spelling of which
is not finally fixed; and these doubtful orthographies Professor Peck,
for example, would decide in one way and Professor Skeat would decide
in another. The most of Professor Peck’s decisions would result in
conforming his spelling to that which obtains in the printing-office of
the London _Times_, but in several cases he would exercise the right of
private judgment, spelling _pædagogue_, for example, and _Vergil_. But
if he chooses to exercise the right of private judgment, he is estopped
from denying this right also to Professor Skeat; and the moment either
of them sets up the personal equation as a guide, all pretense of an
accepted system vanishes.
It is our duty also to draw attention to the fact that it is a
wholesome thing that there is no accepted system and that the
orthography of our language should be free to modify itself in the
future as it has in the past. It is this absence of system which gives
fluidity and flexibility and the faculty of adaptation to changing
conditions. The Chief Justice of England, when he addressed the
American Bar Association, recorded his protest against a cast-iron
code in law as tending to hinder legal development; and our language,
like our law, must beware lest it lose its power of conforming to the
needs of our people as these may be unexpectedly developed. Just as the
conservatism of the English-speaking stock makes it highly improbable
that any sweeping change in our spelling will ever be made, so the
enterprise of the English-speaking stock, its energy and its common
sense, make it highly improbable that any system will long endure which
cramps and confines and prevents progress and simplification.
Finally, we must all of us bend our energies to combating the notion
that, as Mr. Smith has put it, “the existing printed form is not
only _a_ symbol but the _most fitting_ symbol of our mother-tongue.”
There is an almost superstitious veneration felt by most of us for
the spellings we learnt at school; they seem to us sanctified by
antiquity; and perhaps even an inquiry into the history of the language
is not always enough to disestablish this reverence for false gods.
Yet knowledge helps to free us from servitude to idols; and when we
are told that the so-called “accepted spelling” has “dignity,” we may
ask ourselves what dignity there can be in the spelling of _harbour_
with an inserted _u_ which is not pronounced, which has been thrust in
comparatively recently, and which is etymologically misleading.
In his effective answer to Mr. Herbert Spencer’s argument against the
metric system, President T. C. Mendenhall remarked that “ignorant
prejudice” is not so dangerous an obstacle to human progress, nor as
common, as what may be called “intelligent prejudice,” meaning thereby
“an obstinate conservatism which makes people cling to what is or has
been, merely because it is or has been, not being willing to take the
trouble to do better, because already doing well, all the while knowing
that doing better is not only the easier, but is more in harmony with
existing conditions. Such conservatism is highly developed among
English-speaking people on both sides of the Atlantic.” It is just such
conservatism as this that those of us will have to overcome who wish
to see our English orthography continue its lifelong efforts toward
simplification.
To understand how unfortunate for the cause of progress it is when its
leaders miscalculate the popular inertia and when they are therefore
moved to demand more than seems reasonable to the people as a whole,
we have only to consider the result of the joint action, in 1883, of
the Philological Society of England and of the American Philological
Association, in consequence of which certain rules were prepared to
simplify our spelling. Here was a union of indisputable authorities
in favor of an amended orthography; but unfortunately the changes
suggested were both many and various. They were too various to please
any but the most resolute radicals; and they were too many to be
remembered readily by the great majority of every-day folk taking no
particular interest in the subject. They included _theater_, _honor_,
_advertize_, _catalog_; and had they not included anything else, or had
they included only a very few similar simplifications, these spellings
might have won acceptance in the past score of years, even in Great
Britain; the same authorities would now be in a position to make a few
further suggestions equally easy to remember, with a fair hope that
these would establish themselves in turn.
Owing to this attempt to do too much all at once, the joint action of
the two great philological organizations came to naught. Such effect
as it had was indirect at best. It may have been the exciting cause of
the so-called “Printers’ Rules,” which were approved and recommended
by many of the leading typographers of the United States a few years
later. These printers’ rules were few and obvious. They suggested
_catalog_, _program_, _epaulet_, _esthetic_--all of which have become
more familiar of late. They suggested further _opposit_, _hypocrit_,
etc., and also _fotograf_, _fonetic_, etc.; and these simplifications
have not yet been adopted widely enough to prevent the words thus
emended from seeming a little strange to all those who had paid no
special attention to the subject. And these uninterested outsiders are
the very people who are to be converted. To them and to them only must
all argument be addressed. We may rest assured that we have slight
chance of bringing over to our side any of those who have actually
enlisted against us. We must not count on desertions from the enemy; we
must enroll the neutrals at every opportunity.
Probably the most important action yet taken in regard to our
orthography was that of the National Educational Association in
formally adopting for use in all its official publications twelve
simplified spellings--_program_, _tho_, _altho_, _thoro_, _thorofare_,
_thru_, _thruout_, _catalog_, _prolog_, _decalog_, _demagog_,
_pedagog_. These simplified spellings were immediately adopted in the
‘Educational Review’ and in other periodicals edited by members of the
association. They are very likely to appear with increasing frequency
in the school-books which members may hereafter prepare; and any
simplified spelling which once gets itself into a school-book is pretty
sure to hold its own in the future. After an interval of ten or fifteen
years the National Educational Association will be in a position to
consider the situation again; and it may then decide that these twelve
words have established themselves in their new form sufficiently widely
and firmly to make it probable that the association could put forward
another list of a dozen more simplified spellings with a reasonable
certainty that those also will be accepted.
The United States government appointed a board to decide on a uniform
orthography for geographical names; and the recommendations of this
body were generally in the direction of increased simplicity--_Bering_
Straits, for example. The spellings thus officially adopted by the
national government were at once accepted by the chief publishers
of school text-books. And these makers of school-books also follow
the rules formulated by a committee of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science appointed to bring about uniformity in
the spelling and pronunciation of chemical terms. Among the rules
formulated by the committee and adopted by the association were two
which dropped a terminal _e_ from certain chemical terms entering into
more general use. Thus the men of science now write _oxid_, _iodid_,
_chlorid_, etc., and _quinin_, _morphin_, _anilin_, etc., altho the
general public has not relinquished the earlier orthography, _oxide_
and _quinine_. Even the word _toxin_, which came into being since the
adoption of these rules by the associated scientists, is sometimes to
be seen in newspapers as _toxine_.
Thus we see that there is progress all along the line; it may seem
very slow, like that of a glacier, but it is as certain as it is
irresistible. There is no call for any of us to be disheartened by the
prospect. We may, indeed, each of us do what little we can severally
toward hastening the result. We can form the habit of using in our
daily writing such simplified spellings as will not seem affected or
freakish, keeping ourselves always in the forefront of the movement,
but never going very far in advance of the main body. We must not
make a fad of orthographic amelioration, nor must we devote to it a
disproportionate share of our activity--since we know that there are
other reforms as pressing as this and even more important. But we can
hold ourselves ready always to lend a hand to help along the cause; and
we can show our willingness always to stand up and be counted in its
favor.
(1898-1901)
XIV
AMERICANISM--AN ATTEMPT AT A DEFINITION
There are many words in circulation among us which we understand fairly
well, which we use ourselves, and which we should, however, find it
difficult to define. I think that _Americanism_ is one of these words;
and I think also it is well for us to inquire into the exact meaning
of this word, which is often most carelessly employed. More than
once of late have we heard a public man praised for his “aggressive
Americanism,” and occasionally we have seen a man of letters denounced
for his “lack of Americanism.” Now what does the word really mean when
it is thus used?
It means, first of all, a love for this country of ours, an
appreciation of the institutions of this nation, a pride in the history
of this people to which we belong. And to this extent _Americanism_
is simply another word for _patriotism_. But it means also, I think,
more than this: it means a frank acceptance of the principles which
underlie our government here in the United States. It means, therefore,
a faith in our fellow-man, a belief in liberty and in equality. It
implies, further, so it seems to me, a confidence in the future of this
country, a confidence in its destiny, a buoyant hopefulness that the
right will surely prevail.
In so far as Americanism is merely patriotism, it is a very good thing.
The man who does not think his own country the finest in the world
is either a pretty poor sort of a man or else he has a pretty poor
sort of a country. If any people have not patriotism enough to make
them willing to die that the nation may live, then that people will
soon be pushed aside in the struggle of life, and that nation will be
trampled upon and crushed; probably it will be conquered and absorbed
by some race of a stronger fiber and of a sterner stock. Perhaps it is
difficult to declare precisely which is the more pernicious citizen of
a republic when there is danger of war with another nation--the man who
wants to fight, right or wrong, or the man who does not want to fight,
right or wrong; the hot-headed fellow who would plunge the country
into a deadly struggle without first exhausting every possible chance
to obtain an honorable peace, or the cold-blooded person who would
willingly give up anything and everything, including honor itself,
sooner than risk the loss of money which every war surely entails. “My
country, right or wrong,” is a good motto only when we add to it, “and
if she is in the wrong, I’ll help to put her in the right.” To shrink
absolutely from a fight where honor is really at stake, this is the act
of a coward. To rush violently into a quarrel when war can be avoided
without the sacrifice of things dearer than life, this is the act of a
fool.
True patriotism is quiet, simple, dignified; it is not blatant,
verbose, vociferous. The noisy shriekers who go about with a chip on
their shoulders and cry aloud for war upon the slightest provocation
belong to the class contemptuously known as “Jingoes.” They may be
patriotic,--and as a fact they often are,--but their patriotism is too
frothy, too hysteric, too unintelligent, to inspire confidence. True
patriotism is not swift to resent an insult; on the contrary, it is
slow to take offense, slow to believe that an insult could have been
intended. True patriotism, believing fully in the honesty of its own
acts, assumes also that others are acting with the same honesty. True
patriotism, having a solid pride in the power and resources of our
country, doubts always the likelihood of any other nation being willing
carelessly to arouse our enmity.
In so far, therefore, as Americanism is merely patriotism it is a
very good thing, as I have tried to point out. But Americanism is
something more than patriotism. It calls not only for love of our
common country, but also for respect for our fellow-man. It implies an
actual acceptance of equality as a fact. It means a willingness always
to act on the theory, not that “I’m as good as the other man,” but that
“the other man is as good as I am.” It means leveling up rather than
leveling down. It means a regard for law, and a desire to gain our
wishes and to advance our ideas always decently and in order, and with
deference to the wishes and the ideas of others. It leads a man always
to acknowledge the good faith of those with whom he is contending,
whether the contest is one of sport or of politics. It prevents a man
from declaring, or even from thinking, that all the right is on his
side, and that all the honest people in the country are necessarily of
his opinion.
And, further, it seems to me that true Americanism has faith and
hope. It believes that the world is getting better, if not year by
year, at least century by century; and it believes also that in this
steady improvement of the condition of mankind these United States are
destined to do their full share. It holds that, bad as many things may
seem to be to-day, they were worse yesterday, and they will be better
to-morrow. However dark the outlook for any given cause may be at
any moment, the man imbued with the true spirit of Americanism never
abandons hope and never relaxes effort; he feels sure that everything
comes to him who waits. He knows that all reforms are inevitable in
the long run; and that if they do not finally establish themselves it
is because they are not really reforms, tho for a time they may have
seemed to be.
And a knowledge of the history of the American people will supply ample
reasons for this faith in the future. The sin of negro-slavery never
seemed to be more secure from overthrow than it did in the ten years
before it was finally abolished. A study of the political methods of
the past will show that there has been immense improvement in many
respects; and it is perhaps in our political methods that we Americans
are most open to censure. That there was no deterioration of the moral
stamina of the whole people during the first century of the American
republic any student can make sure of by comparing the spirit which
animated the inhabitants of the thirteen colonies during the Revolution
with the spirit which animated the population of the northern states
(and of the southern no less) during the civil war. We are accustomed
to sing the praises of our grandfathers who won our independence,
and very properly; but our grandchildren will have also to sing the
praises of our fathers who stood up against one another for four years
of the hardest fighting the world has ever seen, bearing the burdens of
a protracted struggle with an uncomplaining cheerfulness which was not
a characteristic of the earlier war.
True Americanism is sturdy but modest. It is as far removed from
“Jingoism” in times of trouble as it is from “Spread-Eagleism” in
times of peace. It is neither vainglorious nor boastful. It knows
that the world was not created in 1492, and that July 4, 1776, is not
the most important date in the whole history of mankind. It does not
overestimate the contribution which America has made to the rest of the
world, nor does it underestimate this contribution. True Americanism,
as I have said, has a pride in the past of this great country of ours,
and a faith in the future; but none the less it is not so foolish as to
think that all is perfection on this side of the Atlantic, and that all
is imperfection on the other side.
It knows that some things are better here than anywhere else in the
world, that some things are no better, and that some things are not
so good in America as they are in Europe. For example, probably the
institutions of the nation fit the needs of the population with less
friction here in the United States than in any other country in the
world. But probably, also, there is no other one of the great nations
of the world in which the government of the large cities is so wasteful
and so negligent.
True Americanism recognizes the fact that America is the heir of the
ages, and that it is for us to profit as best we can by the experience
of Europe, not copying servilely what has been successful in the old
world, but modifying what we borrow in accord with our own needs and
our own conditions. It knows, and it has no hesitation in declaring,
that we must always be the judges ourselves as to whether or not we
shall follow the example of Europe. Many times we have refused to walk
in the path of European precedent, preferring very properly to blaze
out a track for ourselves. More often than not this independence was
wise, but now and again it was unwise.
Finally, one more quality of true Americanism must be pointed out. It
is not sectional. It does not dislike an idea, a man, or a political
party because that idea, that man, or that party comes from a certain
part of the country. It permits a man to have a healthy pride in being
a son of Virginia, a citizen of New York, a native of Massachusetts,
but only on condition that he has a pride still stronger that he is an
American, a citizen of the United States. True Americanism is never
sectional. It knows no north and no south, no east and no west. And
as it has no sectional likes and dislikes, so it has no international
likes and dislikes. It never puts itself in the attitude of the
Englishman who said, “I’ve no prejudices, thank Heaven, but I do hate
a Frenchman!” It frowns upon all appeals to the former allegiance of
naturalized citizens of this country; and it thinks that it ought
to be enough for any man to be an American without the aid of the
hyphen which makes him a British-American, an Irish-American, or a
German-American.
True Americanism, to conclude, feels that a land which bred Washington
and Franklin in the last century, and Emerson and Lincoln in this
century, and which opens its schools wide to give every boy the chance
to model himself on these great men, is a land deserving of Lowell’s
praise as “a good country to live in, a good country to live for, and a
good country to die for.”
(1896)
Transcriber’s Notes
In a few cases, obvious errors in punctuation have been corrected.
Page 107: “‘Tess of the Durbervilles’” changed to “‘Tess of the
d’Urbervilles’”