CHAPTER I

ENGLISH SPELLING

AND

SPELLING REFORM

BY

THOMAS R. LOUNSBURY, LL.D., L.H.D.

Emeritus Professor of English

in Yale University

[Illustration]

NEW YORK AND LONDON

HARPER & BROTHERS PUBLISHERS

MCMIX

BOOKS BY

THOMAS R. LOUNSBURY

ENGLISH SPELLING AND SPELLING REFORM.

Post 8vo. net $1.50

THE STANDARD OF USAGE IN ENGLISH.

Post 8vo. net $1.50

THE STANDARD OF PRONUNCIATION IN ENGLISH.

Post 8vo. net 1.50

STUDIES IN CHAUCER. 3 Vols. 8vo. 9.00

HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS, N. Y.

Copyright, 1909, by HARPER & BROTHERS.

_All rights reserved._

Published October, 1909.

TO

BRANDER MATTHEWS

AS A TRIBUTE TO A FELLOW-COMBATANT IN

A COMMON CAUSE, AND A TESTIMONIAL OF

THE LONG-CONTINUED FRIENDSHIP OF YEARS

CONTENTS

CHAP. PAGE

I. CONFESSIONS OF A SPELLING REFORMER 1

II. ATTITUDE OF THE EDUCATED 56

III. THE ORTHOGRAPHIC SITUATION 94

I. THE PROBLEM 94

II. MOVEMENT OF VOWEL-SOUNDS 100

III. THE VOWELS 113

IV. THE DIGRAPHS 134

V. THE CONSONANTS 160

IV. THE QUESTION OF _HONOR_ 194

V. METHODS OF RELIEF 238

VI. OBJECTIONS, REAL OR REPUTED 280

I. LOSS OF KNOWLEDGE OF DERIVATION 283

II. LIKENESS OF SPELLING IN WORDS WITH UNLIKE MEANINGS 307

III. EXISTING BOOKS RENDERED VALUELESS 314

IV. IMPOSSIBILITY OF PHONETIC SPELLING 320

VII. THE FINAL CONSIDERATION 331

INDEX 343

PREFACE

The main ideas underlying the treatment here found of English

orthography were embodied in an article which appeared in the _Atlantic

Monthly_ for June, 1907. The title it there bore was “Confessions of a

Spelling Reformer.” This it was the original intention to give to the

present work. But with the changes which were required in recasting

the article upon which it was based, with the great expansion of many

of the points considered in it, more than all with the extension of

its scope so as to include many new topics, the personal element which

had characterized it none too prominently in the first place sank into

almost complete insignificance. Hence followed the inappropriateness

of the title. Here, accordingly, it has been confined to the opening

chapter, and for it has been substituted that which the volume now

bears.

As published in the magazine, the article referred to was of a length

so unconscionable that I have always been confident that the editor,

however carefully he concealed his feelings, groaned inwardly at the

space he obliged himself to give up to it. Still, long as it was, much

which had been prepared for it was cut out before transmission. It

was felt that there is a point beyond which the patience of the most

long-suffering of editors will not stretch. A few passages which were

then omitted were later made to do service in a presidential address

given at the annual meeting of the Simplified Spelling Board. These

have been restored here, though in a much enlarged form, to their

old place. With them also has been reinstated a good deal of other

matter which had been struck out before the article was forwarded

for publication. I have also made use of several paragraphs which

had appeared a number of years ago in contributions to the _Century

Magazine_. In addition, it is to be said that one whole chapter in

the volume has been printed before, though very much abbreviated, in

_Harper’s Magazine_. But in spite of the extent to which I have drawn

upon matter previously published, fully two-thirds of the contents of

the present treatise has never up to this time appeared in print. This

is true in particular of what in my own eyes is the most important

chapter in the book--that on the Orthographic Situation.

The subject of spelling reform is not, strictly speaking, a

soul-stirring one, nor is any possible treatment of it likely to

contribute to the gayety of nations. If any of the chapters contained

in the present volume be of the slightest interest in itself, that

on the orthographic situation is assuredly not the one. On the other

hand, if there be anything of value in the work, that same chapter

has, as I look at it, far the most value. There is in it, indeed,

nothing original. The numerous facts it contains are to be found

scattered up and down the pages of various volumes--particularly in

the introductions to the larger dictionaries, and in orthographic and

orthoepic essays produced at various periods. But so far as I know,

this is the first attempt ever made to collect and combine and, above

all, to put in a form, easily comprehensible by the general reader,

the widely scattered facts which go to show the precise character

and characteristics of English orthography, and to bring out with

distinctness the real nature of the deep-seated disease under which it

labors.

At all events, whether or not I have been anticipated in the

presentation of these facts, such knowledge of them as can be gained

from this volume or from some better source is essential to the

comprehension of the subject or to any proper consideration of it.

Designedly and avowedly incomplete as is the survey of the subject

here taken, it is sufficiently detailed to give any one who cares to

understand it a fair degree of familiarity with the situation which

confronts him who sets out to effect a genuine and not a spurious

reform. It is furthermore sufficient to give him a fair conception of

the sort of work that will have to be done before the anarchy which now

prevails in our spelling can give way to even the semblance of order.

Assuredly there was ample need of a work of this sort being prepared,

and the only regret that need be entertained is that it has not fallen

to some one better equipped than myself to prepare it. For I reiterate

in this preface what I have said in the body of the work itself: that

there is no one subject upon which men, whether presumably or really

intelligent, are in a state of more hopeless, helpless ignorance

than upon that of the nature and history of English orthography. No

serious student of it can read the articles which appear in newspapers,

the communications sent to them, or the elaborate essays found in

periodicals, without being struck by the more than Egyptian darkness

which prevails. In nearly every one of these mistakes of fact not

merely exist but abound. Most of the assertions made lack even that

decent degree of probability which belongs to respectable fiction. Even

in the very few cases where the facts are correct, the inferences drawn

from them are utterly erroneous and misleading. Many of these articles,

too, contain mistakes of apprehension so gross that one comes to feel

that in the discussion of this particular subject the limits of human

incapacity to understand the simplest assertion have been reached.

Statements of this sort will be resented with all the venomousness of

anonymous personal vituperation. They have not been made, however,

without full examination of scores and scores of articles which have

come out in opposition to spelling reform. No difficulty will be found,

if the occasion demands, to substantiate their correctness beyond the

shadow of a doubt.

The various chapters contained in this volume follow one another in

logical sequence. But I have also sought to make each of them, in a

way, independent of the others, and therefore complete in itself. This

has necessitated, in a very few cases, the repetition of statements

important only for the immediate understanding of the particular

subject. I may venture to add that I have taken great pains to make the

numerous details scattered through the volume absolutely correct, so

that he who quarrels with the conclusions reached may have no cause to

question the facts upon which they are based. If in the immense mass

of these found here I have made anywhere a slip, I shall be grateful

for the detection of it, and none the less so if it come from the most

hostile source. In this subject it is the exact truth of which we are

in pursuit, and a real though not a fancied exposure of error is to be

welcomed gladly.

The movement now going on for the simplification of English spelling

has in the few years of its existence attained a success which has

never been even remotely approached by any similar attempt in the past.

This has been due, in part, to the fact that an effort for reform

has for the first time had behind it the support of an organized

propaganda. Previous undertakings of the sort have been mainly the

work of individuals. It has likewise been due, in part, to the general

spread of knowledge as to the nature and history of words belonging to

our speech and the changes of form they have undergone. Something also

is due to the growing dissatisfaction, a consequence of this increase

of intelligence, with the anomalies and absurdities of the present

spelling, and the loss of time and labor, the waste of money, and the

mental injury which the acquisition of these perverse and perverted

forms involves. In our country, also, this feeling of dissatisfaction

has been strengthened by the consideration that something must be done

to remove from the path of that mighty army of foreigners landing

yearly upon our shores the greatest of the stumbling-blocks in the way

of the acquisition of the English language, necessary as the knowledge

of it is to any comprehension by them of the laws and institutions and

political ideas of the land they are henceforth to make their home.

Flourishing as the present movement assuredly is, it of course may fail

ultimately, as have several which have preceded it. It certainly will

fail if the propaganda does not continue to be vigorously pressed. It

will fail if proposals are adopted and methods are followed which,

while pleasing sciolists, do not recommend themselves to scholars.

That experiment has been too often tried to leave us in any doubt as

to the result. But whatever be the success or failure which may attend

the present movement, none the less am I confident that the English

race will not be content to sit down forever with a system of spelling

which has nothing to recommend it but custom and prejudice, nothing to

defend it but ignorance, nothing but superstition to make it an object

of veneration. An orthography which defies the main object for which

orthography was created cannot continue, with the advance of knowledge,

to be endured forever; for speaking with absolute reverence, it can be

said of it that, not being of God, it cannot stand.

ENGLISH SPELLING AND

SPELLING REFORM

CHAPTER I

CONFESSIONS OF A SPELLING REFORMER

It was my fortune in 1906 to be wandering in lands where English is not

spoken, when the President of the United States issued his famous order

in regard to spelling. Little, therefore, of the comment it occasioned

met my eyes, either at the time or long after; little of the clamor

it excited reached my ears. But after my return to my own country I

had the opportunity to look over no small number of the productions

which came out in opposition to it or in criticism of it, whether they

appeared in the form of reported interviews with prominent persons, of

leaders in newspapers or letters to them, or of elaborate articles in

periodicals. Most of these written pieces were anonymous; but some of

them came avowedly from men of recognized eminence in various fields of

intellectual activity.

It is with no intention of conveying the slightest suggestion of

disparagement of the authors of these various articles that I say that

not one of them contained a single argument which every person who has

paid even a superficial attention to the history of English orthography

has not been familiar with from the time of his first entering upon

the study. Even the jokes and sarcastic remarks of the newspapers were

hoary with the rime of age. In the case of these latter something must

be conceded to the inherent difficulty of the attack, without imputing

the feebleness of it, or the lack of originality in it, to mere

barrenness of brain. From the very nature of things it is hard to be

jocose upon a subject of which one knows nothing at all. A difficulty

of a like nature attended the production of the arguments which were

put forth seriously. They brought forward no new ideas; they simply

inspired recollections. It is only the fact that the writers of the

more elaborate articles seemed to regard the reasons they advanced as

novel, if not startling, contributions to thought, which to the mind of

the veteran of orthographical wars imparted a certain languid interest

to what they said. One comes, in truth, to feel a sort of respect for

the continuous incapacity to comprehend the exact nature of the problem

presented, which year after year of discussion does not impair, nor

affluence of argument disturb.

As in a number of the pieces I was privileged to see I found my own

name mentioned, I trust it will not be deemed a mark of offensive

egotism--egotism of one sort it assuredly is--if I take the occasion of

its appearance in these articles to state my views exactly on various

points connected with the subject instead of having them stated for

me inexactly by others. As confessions seem now to be the literary

fashion, it has seemed best to put what I have to say in that form.

The method of personal statement enables me also to bring out more

distinctly not merely the views held by many, but also the reasons by

which their course has been influenced. This consequently may serve as

an excuse for a mode of utterance which in the case of one so obscure

as myself would be otherwise out of place. Still, while the sentiments

indicated may be entertained by numbers, they are here to be considered

as nothing more than my own individual opinions. I do not pretend to

speak with authority for any person but myself, least of all for any

organization which has started out to carry on the work of spelling

reform. Some, indeed, of the particular views I express may possibly,

or, it may be, will probably, meet with the dissent of those who hold

in general the same beliefs.

Now that the storm and stress which followed the President’s order

is over, now that every one seems to have regained his equanimity, a

fitting moment has apparently arrived to consider the whole subject

itself without reference to the particular proposals of anybody or of

any organization. This can be done at present with a certain detachment

from the feelings which attended the heated controversy that then

prevailed--at least, with as much detachment as is consistent with

the possession of personal convictions. As this treatise, however,

is avowedly egotistical, I may be permitted, before entering into

the general discussion, to refer to a specific charge which has been

regularly brought against me as well as against others. It is all the

more desirable to do so because the consideration of it leads directly

to the comprehension of what is really the great mainstay of the

existing orthography. The charge is that in what I publish I do not use

myself the new spellings, save, at least, on the most limited scale. I

am inconsistent. My practice does not conform to my pretended belief.

Now it is very easy to retort the charge of inconsistency. No one

can use our present spelling without being inconsistent; for English

orthography is nothing but a mass of inconsistencies. Take one of the

commonest of illustrations furnished by those opposed to any reform.

You must not drop the _u_ from _honour_, they tell us, because that

unnecessary vowel shows that the word was derived immediately from the

French, and only remotely from the Latin. On the contrary, you must

retain the _b_ of _debt_ and _doubt_, though this letter hides their

derivation from the French _dette_ and _doute_, and gives the erroneous

impression that they were taken directly from the Latin. Still, it

is no real justification for one’s own conduct to prove that similar

conduct is pursued by those who criticise him for it. Let me bring

forward a few reasons which have influenced my own action, as doubtless

they have more or less that of others.

There is, first, the printing-office to be consulted. This has

generally an orthography of its own, and does not like to have it

deviated from. There is next the publisher to be considered. Even if

he is personally indifferent on the subject of spelling, he has a

pecuniary interest in the work he is bringing out. Naturally he is

reluctant to have introduced into it anything which will tend to retard

its success with the public. As he usually has the means of enforcing

his views, he is very much inclined to employ them.

But far more important, far more restraining than the attitude either

of printer or publisher is that of the public itself. It is not simply

indifferent: it is largely hostile. To many men a strange spelling

is offensive; by the ill-informed it is regarded as portending ruin

to the language. Necessarily no writer desires to limit his possible

audience by running counter to its feelings in a matter which has no

direct bearing upon the subject of which he treats. In my own case the

public--most unwisely, as it naturally strikes me--is none too anxious

under any circumstances to read what I write. Why, therefore, should I

convert what is in my eyes a culpable lack of interest into absolute

indifference or active hostility by rousing the prejudices of readers

in consequence of insisting upon a point which has only a remote

concern with the actual topic that may be under consideration?

These are reasons which I could fairly and honestly give. But,

after all, the main one is something entirely different, something

altogether independent of the feelings of others. With advancing years

knowledge may or may not come; but altruism distinctly lingers. As we

get along in life most of us lose the inclination to be constantly

engaged in fighting strenuously for the progress of even the most

praiseworthy causes. The desire wanes of benefiting your fellow-man,

while encountering in so doing not merely his indifference, but his

active hostility; of urging him to show himself rational while his

proclivities are violently asinine. Even the far keener enjoyment of

rendering him miserable by making evident to his reluctant but slowly

dawning intelligence how much of an ignoramus, not to say idiot, he

has shown himself in his acts and utterances--even this most poignant

of pleasures loses its relish if indulgence in it can be secured

only at the cost of much personal trouble. This is just as true of

spelling reform as of any other movement. In fact, indifference to the

propagation of the truth about it may be regarded as a species of that

very altruism of which I have just disclaimed the practice. If a man

seriously believes that it is essential to the purity and perfection

of the English language that _honor_ should be spelled with a _u_

and _horror_ without it; that _honorable_ should be spelled with a

_u_ and _honorary_ without it; that _meter_ should have its final

syllable in _re_ and _diameter_ and _hexameter_ in _er_; that _deign_

should terminate in _eign_ and its allied compound form _disdain_ in

_ain_; that _convey_ should end in _ey_ and _inveigh_ in _eigh_; that

_precede_ should end in _ede_ and _proceed_ in _eed_; that _fancy_

should begin with _f_ and _phantom_ with _ph_; that _deceit_ should be

written without _p_ and _receipt_ with it; if, in fine, spelling in

different ways words which have the same origin brings him pleasure,

why not leave him in the undisturbed enjoyment of this mild form of

imbecility? He will not be made happier by being made wiser.

It is natural, therefore, that the position of the man who has got

along in years should tend to be rather that of a looker-on than of a

participant in the strife. He feels more and more disposed to content

himself with approving and applauding the work of the younger and

better soldiers. My own attitude is, indeed, very much the same as

that once described to me as his by my dear and honored friend, the

late Professor Child of Harvard. He sometimes did and sometimes did

not employ in his correspondence the reformed spellings which were

recommended by the English and American philological societies. It

may be added, in passing, that these changes, with the weight of the

greatest scholars of both countries behind them, were in general

treated with almost absolute indifference; or, if considered at all,

met usually with the same unintelligent opposition as have the lists

put forth by the Simplified Spelling Board. “If I am writing,” said

Professor Child, “to one of these educated ignoramuses who think there

is something sacred about the present orthography, I always take care

to use the altered forms; but when writing to a man who really knows

something about the subject, I am apt not to take the extra trouble

required to conform to the recommendations made by the two philological

societies.”[1]

In not following my faith by my practice, I am perfectly willing to

concede that my course is not merely inconsistent, but unmanly. I

shall not quarrel with any one who calls it pusillanimous, and even

mean. Intimations to that effect have been made to me more than once

in private letters. These reproaches I recognize as deserved, and I

therefore receive them with meekness. But one of the reasons given

above for my action, or rather inaction--the hostility of readers to

new spellings--points directly to the one mighty obstacle which stands

in the way of reforming our orthography. It is, in truth, all-potent.

Singularly enough, however, it is so far from receiving consideration

that it hardly ever receives much more than mere mention.

The regard for our present orthography is not based at all upon

knowledge, or upon reason. It owes its existence and its strength

almost entirely to sentiment. We give it other names, indeed. We

describe the motives which animate us in big phrases. We talk of our

devotion to the language of our fathers, while displaying the amplest

possible ignorance of what that language was. We please ourselves with

the notion that in denouncing any change we are nobly maintaining

the historic continuity of the speech. As a matter of fact, we are

governed by the cheap but all-powerful sentiment of association. We

like the present orthography because we are used to it. When once the

point of intimate familiarity with the form of a word has been reached,

it makes thenceforward no difference to us how wide is the divergence

between the pronunciation and the spelling which is ostensibly designed

to represent the pronunciation. As little difference does it make

if the form with which we have become familiar not merely fails to

indicate the origin of the word, but on the contrary suggests and

even imposes upon the mind a belief in an utterly false derivation.

Such considerations do not affect us in the slightest. We simply like

the spelling to which we are accustomed; we dislike the spelling to

which we are not accustomed. No one who familiarizes himself with the

articles in newspapers and magazines written by the defenders of the

present orthography can entertain the slightest doubt on this point.

The arguments advanced amount to nothing more than this, that any new

spelling employed is distasteful to the writer because it breaks up old

associations.

Because hostility to change springs not from knowledge, not from

reason, but almost entirely from sentiment, it must not be inferred

that the obstacle it presents to reform is a slight one. On the

contrary, it is peculiarly formidable. So far from being a feeble

barrier to overcome, it is of the very strongest, if not the very

strongest. The fact that in numerous instances it is based upon

foundations demonstrably irrational does not in the least impair its

influence. In any matter of controversy we can fight with assurance

of success against beliefs which the holder has honestly, even if

mistakenly, adopted, because he deems them to be in accordance with

reason. Appeal can then be made to his intelligence. But not so in the

case of a belief based primarily upon sentiment. This is constantly

exemplified in controversies about politics or religion. But nowhere is

the fact more conspicuous than in the matter of English orthography.

To spell differently from what we have been trained to spell irritates

many of us almost beyond the point of endurance. We can manage to put

up with variations from the present orthography prevailing in past

centuries when we come to learn enough about the subject to be aware

that such variations existed. The writers of those times had not

reached that exalted plane of perfect propriety on which it is our good

fortune to live and move. But no contemporary must venture to free

himself from the cast-iron shackles in which we have inclosed the form

of our words without subjecting his action to our indignant protest.

It is vain to deny the strength of the feeling of association. Even

to those who have ascended out of the atmosphere of serene ignorance

in which it flourishes most luxuriantly, a new spelling is always apt

to come with something of a sense of shock. No matter how fully we

recognize the impropriety and even absurdity of the old form, none

the less does the sentiment of association cling to it and affect our

attitude toward it. As this treatise sets out to deal somewhat with

my own impressions, I may be pardoned the employment of a personal

exemplification of the point under discussion. German is, for practical

purposes, mainly a phonetic tongue. In modern times anomalies which

once existed have been largely swept away. It is merely a question

of a few years when they will all go; for, Germany being a nation of

scholars, scholars have there some influence. In studying the language

as a boy I learned some spellings now rarely used. For instance, _thun_

and _todt_ appeared then in the forms here given. Now I see the one

without the _h_, the other without the _d_. I recognize the propriety

of the action taken in dropping the unpronounced letters. But, while

my judgment is perfectly convinced of its correctness, for the life of

me I cannot get over a certain sense of strangeness when I come across

the words in their new form--at least, it was some time before I could.

How much, indeed, we are all affected by this influence of association

one illustration will make convincingly clear. In the sixteenth century

there existed an occasional tendency to spell _hot_ with an initial

_w_. It was an effort to represent the pronunciation of the word which

had begun to prevail in certain quarters. It did not drive out the

present form, but it existed alongside of it. It was a spelling to

which Spenser was particularly addicted. There are many instances of

the use of it in the _Faerie Queene_, of which the following may serve

as examples:

To pluck it out with pincers firie whot.

--_Book I, canto x, st. 26._

He soone approached, panting, breathlesse, whot.

--_Book II, canto iv, st. 37._

Upon a mightie furnace, burning whote.

--_Ib., canto ix, st. 29._

Now, at the present day, anybody would be either amused at the

appearance of such a form as _whot_ if one so spelled the word

ignorantly, or outraged if he did it purposely. But all of us in the

case of _whole_ are doing precisely the very thing we should condemn

in the case of _whot_. In the former of these words the initial letter

has now no more excuse for its existence than in the latter. _Whole_,

by derivation, is precisely the same word as _hale_. The only real

difference between these forms is the difference of vowel sound caused

by dialectical variation. They are both related to _heal_ and _health_.

The closeness of the tie between them all is brought out distinctly

in the phrase “whole and sound.” For centuries, too, the word had the

spelling _hole_. At a later period, like _hot_, it took unto itself an

initial _w_; unlike _hot_, it continued to retain it. Consequently,

we find exemplified in the two words the same old influence of which

we have been speaking. The very persons who would be horrified, and

properly horrified, at giving to _hot_ the spelling _whot_, would be

equally horrified at taking away from _whole_ a letter which, besides

being never heard in pronunciation, disguises the derivation; and the

recognition of this latter at a glance is insisted upon by many as

essential to the proper representation of the word as well as to their

own personal happiness. Here, as elsewhere, it is sentiment that rules

us, not sense.

It is unquestionably a distinct objection to the introduction of new

spellings that they have the temporary effect of breaking up old

associations. They consequently distract the attention of the reader

from the idea the word conveys to the word itself. This would to some

extent be true, even were he strongly in favor of the changes made.

Necessarily this is much more the case when he is bitterly opposed

to them, and honestly, no matter how unintelligently, fancies that

the fate of the language is bound up with the continuance of some

particular method of spelling. It is true that the frequent occurrence

of a new form on the printed page soon dispels the sense of strangeness

with which it is greeted at first. But to produce that effort speedily,

the reader must have an open mind. An open mind, however, is just

what the ordinary believer in the present orthography lacks. He not

only conceives an intense prejudice against the new form itself, but

he is sometimes unwilling to read the book or article containing it.

This, I have already intimated, is my main reason for not adopting in

practice several spellings which in theory I approve. Some of the old

ones to which many are devoted are too much for even the large charity

I entertain for the most undesirable citizens of the orthographic

commonwealth. But with others I put up because it is only by using them

that one can succeed in getting a hearing from those who most need

to be made conscious of the extent of their linguistic ignorance and

the depth of their orthographic depravity. It is the unbelievers that

require conversion, and not those who are already firm in the faith.

Accordingly, for the sake of a temporary communication between the

multitude which still continues to sit in linguistic darkness and him

who seeks to enlighten them, the old spelling may be properly used as a

sort of material bridge over which to trundle orthographic truth.

Necessarily, violent hostility to new spellings has always to be

reckoned with. It is by no means so intense or so wide-spread as

it was once. The language employed is now much more guarded. Men

have come to gain some comprehension of the boundlessness of their

ignorance of the subject, and have learned in consequence the wisdom

of putting restraint upon expression. Intemperate invectives will,

indeed, continue to be heard for a long while yet. Rarely, however,

will they proceed from any quarter where we have a right to expect

real intelligence. Doubtless belated survivals of the previous era

of good old-fashioned gentlemanly ignorance will occasionally thrust

themselves upon the attention; but these ebullitions now surprise

and amuse rather than irritate. A case in point comes to my mind. In

the latter part of 1906 I chanced to be in London during the period

when a violent controversy was going on between the _Times_ and the

publishers as to the prices at which books were to be offered for

sale. Every morning the columns of the great daily were filled with

letters on one side or the other of the matter at issue. Naturally

the participators in this bibliopolic tournament did not invariably

confine themselves to the special subject under discussion. Toward

the very close of the year a particularly precious effusion on a side

issue came from one of the correspondents.[2] His patriotic soul had

been stirred to the depths by the fact, as he asserted, that English

publishers had been guilty of using what he called American spelling

in their books. They had indulged in this heinous crime from the

ignoble lust of gain. He had declined, in consequence, to buy works he

needed and desired because they were printed in this fashion. “It is a

treason against our language and country,” he wrote, “and not merely

an offence against taste.” Further, the writer of this extraordinary

communication incidentally took pains to inform us that he had been the

winner of a prize essay at Cambridge University. Presumably, therefore,

he had reached an appreciable degree of mental development and was in

possession of some intelligence, however little his utterances might

seem to indicate it.

English scholarship has been too commonly distinct from scholarship

in English; but in these latter days it creates some little surprise

to find displayed publicly by a presumably educated man so gross a

manifestation of all-pervading ignorance as is exemplified in the

communication just mentioned. Undoubtedly there are still many who

think just such thoughts, if it be proper to dignify sentiments of

this sort with the name of thoughts. But it is really too late to give

them public utterance--at least, with the writer’s name attached. That

should be safely sheltered behind the bulwark of type. Better still,

such opinions should be reserved for the circle of one’s private

friends, either ignorant enough to sympathize with them, or too much

attached to the speaker to expose them to the comment of a more

intelligent, but also more unfeeling, world. Things, indeed, cannot

be said now that could be said with impunity, and to some extent with

applause, fifty years ago--and even twenty-five years ago could be said

with safety. During the last half century men have been running to and

fro, and knowledge has been increased. This is true in particular of

the knowledge of English orthography, of its history and its character.

So generally, indeed, have special students, and even occasionally

highly educated men, become familiar with the fact of the differences

between the spelling of the present and that of the past, and to a less

extent, with the changes that have taken place at various periods and

with the causes that have brought them about, that it startles one at

first to discover that there are quarters into which not even a ray of

this light has penetrated.

It is, however, no difficult matter to point out the grand source of

erroneous beliefs of this sort. It all goes back to the sentiment of

association. Unhappily this sentiment of association never receives

check or correction, because we familiarize ourselves with the

language of the past in the spelling of the present. In the matter of

orthography, the dead author is considered to have no rights which

the living publisher is bound to respect. His spelling is regularly

altered so as to conform to that of the particular dictionary which has

been adopted in the printing-house as a sort of official guide. This is

done even when the writer himself has felt and expressed solicitude as

to the form in which his words should appear. There was a period when

a somewhat similar treatment was meted out to his grammar. The great

works of the past underwent at one time more or less revision at the

hands of the veriest literary hacks, who made changes in the language

in order to reconcile it to their notions of propriety of usage. Idioms

had their structure sometimes modified, sometimes improved out of

existence. Sentences were recast in order to correct supposed errors,

and bring them into accord with the rules laid down in the latest

school grammar. This was particularly true of the latter half of the

eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth. Hence, editions

of the classic authors of our tongue then appearing can frequently

not be consulted with confidence by him to whom it is of importance

to ascertain, in any given case, the words, forms, and constructions

actually used by the writer.

This condition of things is no longer true of the grammar and

expression. Modern editors, as a general rule, pay scrupulous heed to

the exact reproduction of the words and constructions of the original,

whether these accord or not with their ideas of propriety. But as yet

there is little of this sensitiveness of feeling about the orthography.

It may be conceded that the matter is not in itself so important for

a certain class of readers. The expression, after all, is the vital

concern. Accordingly, in a work designed for the use of the great

body of men, it may not be desirable to reproduce peculiarities of

orthography so numerous and so variant from present use as to interfere

with ease of reading, or distract attention from the thought to the

form of the words in which the thought is clothed. While, therefore,

the reproduction of the exact spelling of a classic work is essential

to the educated man who desires to be acquainted with the history of

the speech, it is of but subsidiary importance to perhaps a majority of

ordinary readers. Even an author so late as Shakespeare would hardly

have been the popular writer he is had the mass of men been compelled

to read him in the spelling in which his works originally appeared.

Something has undoubtedly been lost by conforming his orthography to

that of the present time, but doubtless much more has been gained in

the wider reading his works have received in consequence.

Considerations of this sort do not apply to works designed strictly for

the specialist and the highly educated. But even in the case of the

great mass of men they do not apply to works which have been published

since English orthography fell under the sway of the printing-house.

The variations from the existing forms are indeed increasingly numerous

the farther we go back; but even where they most prevail they are not

really large in number or serious in character. Certainly they would

not present to an intelligent human being the slightest obstacle

to ease of reading or of comprehension. Hence, we have a right to

demand that the few variations which exist should be reproduced both

in their integrity and their entirety; that an edition of an author

belonging to these later periods should represent his spelling as well

as his grammar. In the vast majority of instances--excluding avowed

reprints--this is not now the case. In the matter of orthography,

rarely do editors or publishers have any conscience. The works of

the past, even of the immediate past, are presented to us not in the

spelling of the past, but in that of the present.

Hence, there is no occasion for surprise that such pitiful exhibitions

of ignorance are so constantly displayed by men from whom we should

naturally expect better things. The large majority of even cultivated

readers do not see the words used by any great author of the past

in the way in which he himself spelled them. They see them only as

the modern printer chooses to spell them for him. It is, therefore,

not surprising that the existing orthography should come to seem to

such men not the comparatively late creation it is, but as something

which has about it all the flavor of antiquity. As an inevitable

result, there has been further imparted to it the odor of sanctity.

Ignorance is recognized everywhere as a mother of devotion. Nowhere

has there been a more striking manifestation of this truth than in

the case of our spelling. The adoring worship of it seems to be more

widely diffused in England than in America--at least, it is there more

shameless in the exhibition of its lack of knowledge, though that is

saying a good deal. We have all of late been made familiar with the

somewhat unfortunate remark of an English writer, that the spelling

of Shakespeare was good enough for him. Now an assertion of this sort

would be worthless as an argument, even were it based upon a foundation

of ascertained fact. We do not deprive ourselves of existing

facilities of any sort, because they were not only unused, but were

unheard of in the time of Queen Elizabeth. No one now feels himself

under the necessity of refraining from making a rapid trip to Stratford

by rail because Shakespeare was compelled to journey thither slowly and

laboriously over the wretchedest of roads.

But in this instance an argument, worthless in itself, is made

even more worthless, if possible, because the facts upon which it

is presumed to be founded do not exist. Shakespeare flourished in

a period when no eager desire existed for the maintenance of any

strict orthographic monopoly. Within certain well-defined limits

every one spelled pretty much as he pleased. Hence, the same word

cannot infrequently be found in his writings, and in those of

his contemporaries, with marked diversities of form. His usage,

furthermore, differed in some cases entirely from any known to the

modern world. But if his printed works fairly represent his practice,

he evinced in many instances a perverse preference for what the

semi-educated call American spelling. Let us test the truth of this

last assertion by examining the attitude he assumed in a matter about

which an orthographic controversy has been raging for centuries.

This is the case of certain words which, according to one method of

spelling, end in _er_, according to the other, in _re_.

As regards orthography, these words naturally divide themselves into

two classes. In the first of these the termination is preceded by _c_.

When this is the case the words fall under the influence of a general

principle regulating pronunciation--so far as general principles can

be said to regulate anything in English. According to it, _c_ before

the vowel _e_ assumes the sound of _s_. The words of this particular

class which Shakespeare uses are _acre_, _lucre_, and _massacre_. Were

they made to end in _er_, they would have to come into conflict with

the rule just mentioned. As a result they would mislead, as to their

proper pronunciation, those who saw them for the first time. Under

present conditions, they therefore cannot well undergo any change. The

only way out of the difficulty would be to substitute _k_ for _c_. Such

a course we have taken, for instance, in the case of the word _joke_.

This comes from the Latin _joc-us_ with the same meaning. At its first

introduction into the speech, in the latter part of the seventeenth

century, it was spelled _joque_ or _joc_. It finally gave up the _c_

of the original and substituted for it _k_. On the other hand, in the

adjective _jocose_, we retain the letter of the primitive which we

have discarded in the noun.

This state of things is modern, because in Anglo-Saxon _c_ had always

the sound of _k_. Consequently, in _æcer_, the original of our word

_acre_, there was neither difficulty nor confusion created by the

employment of the letter. All this, however, was changed by the Norman

Conquest. The pronunciation of _c_ was in consequence affected, as

it still is, by a following _e_. The result was that for a long time

_k_ was largely substituted in this particular word for the original

letter. But in the fourteenth century the present method of spelling it

came into fashion. It has remained in fashion ever since. The earlier

form maintained itself for a while as of equal authority. It, indeed,

died out slowly and reluctantly; but it died at last. In the collected

edition of Shakespeare’s plays, which appeared in 1623, _acre_ was

practically the only recognized spelling. The word occurs in this

work just seven times. In one instance only does the older form crop

up. When Hamlet tells Laertes, “Let them throw millions of acres on

us,” the word is spelled _akers_.[3] In a similar way Bacon in his

_Advancement of Learning_ uses _lukar_ for _lucre_. But examples of

practices such as these are exceptional.

Consideration of a like sort does not, however, apply to the words

of the second class to be considered. There are several of these now

found with the ending _er_ or _re_ which do not appear in Shakespeare’s

writings. Conspicuous among those not used by him are _fibre_ or

_fiber_, _miter_ or _mitre_, _niter_ or _nitre_, _sabre_ or _saber_,

_specter_ or _spectre_. But the words of this second class which

actually occur are more numerous than those of the first class. The

most common ones employed by him, about which variation of usage now

prevails, are _center_ or _centre_, _luster_ or _lustre_, _meager_ or

_meagre_, _meter_ or _metre_, _scepter_ or _sceptre_, _sepulcher_ or

_sepulchre_, _theater_ or _theatre_. It becomes a matter, therefore, of

some interest to discover which of these forms must be chosen by the

writer who professes that Shakespeare’s spelling is good enough for

him. The evidence afforded by the printed page--in this case the only

evidence that can be secured--is accordingly given in the following

paragraph.

Take the spelling of the words just mentioned as it is found in the

folio of 1623. _Center_ appears precisely twelve times in that volume.

It is never spelled with _re_. In ten instances it has the termination

_er_. Once the form _centry_ is found, and once _centure_. _Meager_

occurs five times. In every instance it ends in _er_. This similar

statement may be made of _meter_, which is used but twice. In both

these cases it has the termination _er_. _Scepter_ is a word found

far more frequently. It appears just thirty-five times.[4] Not once

does it have the ending _re_; it is invariably _er_. The case is not

essentially different with _sepulcher_. Thirteen times it occurs;

eleven times with the termination _er_, twice with the termination

_re_.[5] About the theater Shakespeare may be supposed to have had some

knowledge. The word itself appears but six times in his plays. But even

in these few instances he seems to have felt a perverse preference

for the spelling in _er_ over that in _re_. The former occurs just

five times, the latter but once. The only consolation left for him who

combines devotion to Shakespeare with devotion to the ending in _re_

is found in the word spelled _lustre_ or _luster_. It appears exactly

thirteen times. Seven times it is spelled the former way, six times the

latter.

Spellings of this sort, it may be added, are far from being limited

to Shakespeare’s age. They were followed by many writers much later.

Modern editions, to which we are accustomed, do more, as already

intimated, than hide the fact from our eyes. They actually prevent, for

most of us, the possibility of discovering it. Hence, the prevalent

lack of intelligence, with its consequent hardiness of assertion, not

unfrequently accompanied with the feeling of distress and repulsion

at any proposal for change. He whose heart is affected with sadness

at the sight of the spelling _theater_ for _theatre_ or _center_ for

_centre_, and whose prophetic soul foresees disaster as the result of

the general adoption of such forms, would find his grief alleviated and

his fears dispelled if he could only extend his knowledge sufficiently

to familiarize himself with the real practice of the past, instead of

getting his notions about it from the falsifications of the present.

Examine, for instance, in regard to the very usage under discussion,

the first edition of Addison’s _Remarks on Italy_. This work was

brought out in 1705 by Tonson, the most noted publisher of the time.

The same variation which prevailed earlier in the use of these

terminations still continued. But there continued also a distinct

preference for _er_ over _re_. _Fiber_, _salt-peter_, and _scepter_

are found as here printed. _Theater_ occurs seven times, six times as

_theater_, and once--in poetry--as _theatre_. _Amphitheater_ is used

ten times in all. Once its plural is spelled _amphitheatres_; in the

other nine instances it has the ending in _er_.[6] On the other hand,

_meager_ and _niter_, both of which are used once, and _sepulcher_,

which appears five times, have the termination _re_. Or, take

_Gulliver’s Travels_, which came out more than a score of years later.

The first edition of the work was published in 1726 in two volumes. In

it _center_ is found just seven times. In every instance it is spelled

with the ending _er_, not once in _re_. _Meager_, it may be added,

occurs twice, and in both cases as here spelled.[7] But here again, as

in most other works, modern reprints falsify the record.

In these instances it is easy enough to exaggerate the importance

of the evidence furnished on this point; at least, it is so in the

case of the Elizabethans. In any fair discussion of orthography, two

things are to be kept in view. One is to ascertain the exact facts;

the other is not to get from them erroneous impressions. Let us go

back, for instance, to Shakespeare and his spelling of words with the

endings _er_ or _re_. It is not in the least desirable to attribute

to him feelings which he never had, nor even dreamed of having. Like

his contemporaries, he found two forms of these words in use. Like

them, he attached no particular sanctity to either. He unquestionably

felt himself at liberty to use both. All, therefore, that one can

positively say in the case of these words is that if Shakespeare had

any preference, it was manifestly in favor of the termination in _er_.

If it be urged that the plays published after his death do not

represent either his opinion or his practice, it is fair to say in

reply that a like condition of things is revealed in the minor poems.

All of these appeared in his lifetime. Over the printing of some of

them he may have had no oversight. For the spelling of the words found

in these he cannot, therefore, be held directly responsible. Still,

the two most important of them--_Venus and Adonis_ and _The Rape of

Lucrece_--must, in going through the press, have passed under his own

eye. In consequence, the spelling employed could not have failed to

receive his tacit sanction at least, if even, what is more probable,

he was not himself primarily responsible for it. Yet in these very

two poems _scepter_[8] and _sepulcher_[9] are found so spelled in

the original editions. A like statement may be made of this last

word in the single instance in which it occurs in the _Sonnets_.[10]

Further, the same thing may be said about his use of _center_[11] and

_meter_.[12] Each appears but once, but it appears as just given. On

the other hand _meager_, which is found five times in this form in

the plays, has the spelling _meagre_[13] in its solitary occurrence

in the poems. For neither one of these forms is Shakespeare likely to

have felt any decided preference. Still, he could not have failed to

see that there was no more reason for the spelling _meagre_ instead of

_meager_ than there was for _eagre_ in place of _eager_, or, to adopt

the more common earlier orthography, _egre_.

Besides these words there were two others of the class considered,

about which variation of usage existed or exists. Because of their

single occurrence in his writing, their spelling can be regarded of

importance only as indicating tendency. Othello, in his account of his

life, speaks of “antres vast and deserts idle,” as it is found in all

modern editions. But Shakespeare has no such form as _antres_. In the

first folio it is _antars_; in the quarto of 1622 it is _antrees_,

indicating a difference of pronunciation. The word itself is rare at

any period. Its later use, so far as it has been used at all, is due

to its appearance in a favorite play of the great dramatist. No one

among his contemporaries seems, so far as is now known, to have felt

it desirable or incumbent to resort to its employment; though later

investigations may cause it to turn up at any time. But the form in

which we know it is not due to Shakespeare himself, but to his editors.

There seems little reason for denying him the privilege of spelling the

word in his own way. There is still another term, now not uncommon,

which is found but once in his writings. But the villainous stuff which

Henry IV.’s ambassador told Hotspur was digged from the bowels of the

earth to destroy brave men, was not _salt-petre_, as modern editions

have it, but _salt-peter_ in the original.[14]

These are all the disputed words of this class which are found in the

poems of Shakespeare as well as in his plays, as also the number of

times of their occurrence. Facts of this sort are familiar, at least

in a general way, to all special students of our speech. But even from

the highly educated they are hidden more or less, and in many cases

hidden altogether. These see ordinarily nothing but modern editions

of the greatest writers; and in modern editions modern orthography is

substituted for the orthography which the authors of the past favored,

or at least endured. The result is that the feeling of association

which attaches to every word a particular form is never subjected to

the counteracting influence which would spring from coming even into

occasional contact with the earlier usage. The strength of this feeling

has in consequence become abnormal. From it has further developed the

singular belief of the orthographically uneducated that the present

spelling is somehow bound up with the purity of the language, if not

with its continued existence.

It is because I look upon this sentiment of association as the main

bulwark of our present orthography that I have always taken the ground

that it is only through a rising generation that any thorough-going

reform can ever be accomplished. It is asking too much of human nature

to expect a generation already risen to go a second time through

the fiery ordeal of learning to spell. Individuals belonging to it

will adopt proposed changes, especially those in whom conviction is

reinforced by the energy of youth or of personal character. Of these

there will be a regularly increasing number with the enlightenment

which is sure to follow discussion of the subject. But the action of

the great mass of even highly educated men will not be affected. This

state of things would probably be true of the spelling of any language;

but in one so defiant of all law as our own, the aversion to change

would increase in proportion to the lawlessness. We are not disposed

to give up what with so much toil we have acquired. Furthermore,

there comes to be in the minds of many a certain fondness for the

existing orthography because of its very irrationality, of its constant

unfitness to fulfil its professed aim of representing pronunciation.

Its uncouthness inspires them with the same sort of devotion with

which the lower order of savage tribes regard their gods. The uglier

they are, the more fervently they are adored.

In the case of a rising generation there are no such feelings to be

encountered. The soil is virgin. No prejudices are to be overcome,

no sentiments to be shocked, no customs to be changed. The reasoning

powers have not been so blunted by association that the mind looks with

favor upon what is defiant of reason. Furthermore, about the changed

and correct forms would speedily gather the same sentiment which has

caused the previous forms to be cherished by their elders. The younger

generation will in time do more than look upon the new spellings as the

only conceivably rational ones. They will wonder by what perversity

their fathers came to tolerate the old ones in defiance of reason. If

a child has been accustomed from his earliest years to use exclusively

the forms _vext_ and _mixt_, the spellings _vexed_ and _mixed_ will

not only seem offensive to him when he becomes a man, but it will be

difficult for him to comprehend the precise nature of the irrationality

which could ever have insisted upon it as a virtue that the combination

_ed_ should have the sound of _t_.

A risen generation, accordingly, cannot reasonably be expected to

adopt a new spelling. The most that can be asked of it is that it

shall not put itself in active opposition, that it shall let the task

of improving our present barbarous orthography go on unimpeded. This,

however, is the very last thing it is inclined to do. The fathers have

eaten sour grapes; they have no intention of keeping their children’s

children’s teeth from being set on edge. Yet there is plainly to be

recognized now the existence of a steadily increasing number of persons

who are disposed to consider this whole question carefully. In the case

of such men--upon whose co-operation the success of any movement must

ultimately depend--it is all-essential that the changes proposed should

recommend themselves by their manifest propriety or by the probability

of their general acceptance. They may be unwilling to take the trouble

to use these new forms in their own practice, even if convinced of

their desirableness; but they will be ready to cast their influence in

favor of their adoption by the members of that rising generation to

whom the spelling of certain words in certain ways has not yet become

almost a second nature.

The permanent success of any spelling reform, according to this view,

depends upon its adoption by a rising generation. To have it so

adopted, it must recommend itself to the risen generation as being

both desirable and feasible. Unreasoning ignorance, intrenched behind

a rampart of prejudice, can be ignored. Not so the honest ignorance

of those whose training naturally inclines them to favor what has

been long received, but who are not averse to consider the question

in dispute fully and fairly. In any case the changes proposed, in

order to succeed, must follow the line of least resistance; for they

have to encounter that peculiarly formidable of hostile forces--the

unintelligent opposition of the intelligent. The altered forms

recommended for adoption must, therefore, have at the outset some

support either in present or past usage, or they must be in accord with

the operation of some law modifying orthography, which has always been

steadily, even if imperceptibly, at work in the language.

It is because it does not conform to either of these principles that,

had I had anything to say about it, I should have objected to the

recommendation of the spelling _thru_. My reasons for taking such

ground would have had nothing to do with the abstract propriety or

impropriety of the new form. Nor could exception be taken to it on the

score of derivation. The original word, indeed, from which it came

was _thurh_. Later this appeared at times as _thruh_. No fault could,

therefore, be found with the alteration beyond the dropping of the sign

of the no longer pronounced guttural. It is not principle, therefore,

that would have come into the consideration of it, but expediency. I

should have objected to it solely on the ground that it is a violent

break with the literary past. Therefore, instead of following the line

of least resistance, it would follow the line of greatest. It would be

sure, in consequence, to excite bitter hostility and to repel support

from the other recommendations made. Its adoption into the list would,

therefore, not have seemed to me good policy. This is a view of the

matter entirely independent of my personal indisposition to favor vowel

changes in the spelling until a settled plan for the representation

of the vowel sounds has been agreed upon and accepted. Yet it is fair

to add that in consequence of the frequency with which the new form

has been made the subject of attack, the sense of strangeness and the

resultant hostility with which it was first greeted have now largely

worn away.

It has been asserted that hostility to the very idea of reforming

the spelling has largely its source in the erroneous beliefs, with

the prejudices engendered of them, that have come to prevail in

consequence of tampering with the orthography found in the works of

the past, and reproducing them in the orthography of the present. In

time, and with effort, the widely diffused ignorance so generated

can be trusted to disappear. But even when this obstacle is removed,

another of the same general nature still remains. It is, perhaps, full

as formidable. There is no reference here to the difficulty inherent

in the very character of our spelling--a difficulty that is far the

most serious of all. This is, however, a subject which will come up

for consideration by itself. The obstacle here in mind lies in the

very nature of the men of our race. It is an obstruction by no means

confined to them; only in them it is more pronounced than in the case

of other nations with other tongues. The English-speaking people, in

their attempts at carrying out any reform, are little inclined to act

logically. They do not place clearly before themselves the exact nature

of the evil they propose to attack, and then set out to extirpate it

root and branch, according to certain well-defined principles. On the

contrary, they work by the rule of thumb. They find a flaw here, a

defect there. They then proceed to remedy it as best they can without

disturbing and disarranging the rest of the structure. Accordingly, no

symmetry is displayed in the character of the alteration made and no

perfection in the result.

Still, about this method there are manifest advantages. Whatever

changes are effected are effected with the least possible friction, and

after the least possible struggle. They are brought about so gradually

that the minds of men are comparatively little disturbed by the break

with the past which has been made. There still remain relics of its

absurdities with which they can console themselves for what they have

lost. Consequently, the alterations, however much an object of dislike,

cause nothing of that intense hostility which attends any scientific

and, therefore, sweeping reform.

In this respect our race stands in sharpest contrast with that foreign

one with which its connections have been closest--which has often

been its enemy and occasionally its ally. The French mind, unlike

the English, is by nature severe and logical. It cares little for

precedent. It fixes its eyes upon principle. It is disposed to follow

any reform it accepts to its remotest conclusion. It drops without

hesitation long-cherished excrescences, brings order out of chaos,

even if in so doing it is forced to disregard traditions and override

cherished sentiments. We can see the attitude of the French mind as

contrasted with that of the English best illustrated in comparatively

recent French history. The Revolution was a period of storm and stress.

Things were then attempted which would hardly have been thought of, far

less tried, at any ordinary period. But the point here is that such

things could never have been carried out by the men of the English race

at the most extraordinary period. It is not merely that they would not

have been done; they would not have been contemplated. To unify France,

for illustration, it was essential, in the eyes of the revolutionists,

that the ancient provinces should be obliterated, so far as their

size would permit their entire effacement. They therefore cut up the

land into departments. In these the old boundaries were disregarded.

Sections of different provinces were brought into political union

wherever practicable. New affiliations were to take the place of the

old. The idea of federation was to be destroyed. The provinces were

to be made to disappear as living entities from the minds of men. In

place of them the department, a purely artificial creation, was to be

constantly before their eyes. Men were no longer to be Normans or

Bretons or Gascons or Burgundians; they were to be simply Frenchmen.

In diverting the thought of the people from the provinces to the whole

country, the reformers had no hesitation in uprooting the traditions

and common associations which the inhabitants of these provinces had

inherited from the past, and in running counter to sentiments which had

been the outgrowth of centuries.

It is safe to say that in the time of most violent revolution, no idea

of this sort would occur to the men of the English-speaking races. Even

in the case of the counties of Great Britain, where the tie is by no

means strong, it can hardly be conceived as undergoing consideration.

But contemplate the reception that would be given to the project

of breaking up the United States into a series of departments, or

provinces, in which the present boundaries should be obliterated, and

in which all the members should have, as far as possible, the same size

or the same population! Now there would be with us no advantage worth

mentioning in any such action. But suppose there would arise from it

advantages which every one would admit to be of the most immense and

far-reaching importance? Even in that case, imagine the favor any such

proposition would meet with, and the chances there would be for its

adoption. Yet this is something which revolutionary France not only

set out to accomplish, but actually did accomplish. She accomplished

it, too, not in the case of political entities which, as with us, had

often only a few years of existence, and at best but two or three

hundred, but in the case of provinces whose history went back to the

very beginnings of modern Europe. She overrode all local ties, all

provincial prejudices, in her resolution that her inhabitants should no

longer be citizens of Provence or Normandy or Brittany, but citizens

only of France.

Exactly the same thing may be said of another experiment then made. It

is practically inconceivable to imagine the men of our race, on their

own initiative, devising and setting up such a violent alteration of

all existing practices as was involved in the introduction, in 1799,

of the metrical system of weights and measures. There is no need of

discussing here its abstract superiority or inferiority. The only point

to be made prominent is that the English could not, or at least would

not, have gone at the problem that way. Even if they had solved it to

their satisfaction, they would not have thought of at once proceeding

to put into practice the conclusions reached. The French mind, clear

and logical, saw, as it believed, the advantage of a uniform system

of weights and measures. One method, for illustration, of weight

for gold and silver, another for drugs and chemicals, another for

ordinary objects, struck them as having no justification in reason.

They took advantage of a period when all ancient beliefs and customs

were on trial for their life to reduce these varying practices to

uniformity. They created a commission of men to study the subject. To

them they intrusted the consideration of it, and instructed them to

report the measures that ought to be taken. Once satisfied that their

recommendations were worthy of adoption, they did not, as would have

been done with us, pigeon-hole the report containing them. Instead,

they enacted them into law and imposed them upon the whole country,

whether men were willing to accept them or averse.

This is the way the French mind works, or, rather, is disposed to work;

for the things accomplished then could not have been accomplished so

suddenly, if even at all, in any ordinary period. But the English

mind does not act in that way. Just as it is in the French blood to

reduce everything to a system of orderly completeness, no matter what

inconveniences may attend the process, so it is in our blood to love

an anomaly for its own sake, frequently to extol it as something

desirable in itself. This difference of mental attitude between the

two races is made strikingly manifest in their treatment of this very

subject of spelling. A difficulty of somewhat the same nature, though

far less in degree, confronts the French as confronts the English.

Their orthography is wretched. It is not by any means so wretched

as ours. Still, it is bad enough to attract the attention of men of

learning and of those engaged in the business of education. The evil

was admitted. What should be the nature of the remedy? To what extent

should, or rather could, reform of the orthography be carried? These

are not revolutionary times, and things which are capable of being

carried through in revolutionary times cannot even be attempted now.

Therefore, one point assumed the place of prominence. This was not

what it was theoretically desirable to do, but what, under modern

conditions, it was practicable to do. Accordingly, as far back as 1903,

the French government appointed a commission to consider the matter.

It embraced some of the most eminent scholars. The committee made a

report, which was submitted by the government to the French Academy.

Disagreement arose, not so much on matters of principle as of detail.

A second commission was appointed to prepare a final plan upon which

the minister of public instruction could take action. Its report has

been published and its conclusions promulgated. They are not binding,

to be sure. Yet, with the weight of the government and the French

Academy behind them, it is merely a question of time when any changes

recommended will be adopted by all.

It is evident from this one fact that the desire to make the spelling

conform as far as possible to the pronunciation--the one object for

which spelling was devised--is far from being confined to the men

of the English-speaking race. Even when it cannot succeed in its

main object, it aims to bring about uniformity by sweeping away the

anomalous. The movement for spelling reform now going on with us is,

therefore, no isolated undertaking. It is simply part of a world-wide

movement in the interests of law and order. There is an intellectual

conscience as well as a moral one. On this subject the intellectual

conscience of the users of speech among all thoroughly enlightened

nations has now been distinctly awakened. The only peculiarity about

English is that the need of such an awakening is far more pressing

than in other tongues, and the difficulty of discovering the right

track to follow is far greater. Neither Italian nor Spanish requires

any sweeping change. For all practical purposes, these tongues are

phonetic. Irregularities can unquestionably be found, but they are

neither numerous nor important. Above all, they do not affect the

vital representation of pronunciation by giving, as with us, different

signs to the same sound and different sounds to the same sign. Their

deviation from the phonetic standard is confined to the retention

of unnecessary letters. This is a matter that can be grappled with

easily. On the limited scale it exists, it is not of much moment. Any

variations from the ideal can be easily corrected if the project is

once taken seriously in hand.

In German, the variation from the phonetic standard is greater than in

the two tongues just mentioned. As compared with English, however, it

is exceedingly slight. Even in those instances where it has different

signs to represent the same sound, it does not, as is the case with

our speech, make the confusion more confounded by giving to these same

signs the representation of sounds altogether different. But the public

mind is awake in Germany to the importance of this subject. Many of the

more marked variations from the phonetic ideal have already been done

away with by the action of the several governments. For, in Germany, a

nation of scholars, the control of educational methods is immediately

or remotely in the hands of scholars. These men, not satisfied with

what has already been accomplished, are at work to do away with the

anomalies that continue to exist. When once they come into accord over

the measures to be adopted and the changes to be made, it is merely a

question of time when their proposals will be carried into effect. The

various governments will do the work of promulgation and enforcement.

The reforms recommended will be embodied in the text-books and taught

in the schools. That action once taken, the whole work itself has

practically been done.

Unfortunately, none of the means just mentioned are practicable with

us. The administration of education is nowhere in England or America

really centralized, as it is in France and Germany. In those countries

any changes which have behind them the best expert opinion can be

carried through with comparative ease. The German government will

venture on any educational experiments which have the united support

of German scholars. In France the almost superstitious deference paid

to the decisions of the Academy will cause any orthographic changes

having the sanction of that body to be accepted by the great mass of

the community. Individuals may growl, but they will submit. More than

once the Academy has recommended reforms, and these have been adopted

because they were so recommended. About the middle of the eighteenth

century it altered the spelling of five thousand words. Perhaps it

would be juster to say that it indicated, in the case of a number of

these, what one should be adopted of several forms which were then in

use. No one would think now of going back to those against which it

then pronounced. When, therefore, the department of public instruction

and the Academy work together in harmony, their union is irresistible.

Once the reformed spelling is authorized to be taught in the public

schools, the simpler forms can be trusted to work their way by that

inherent strength of their own which comes from inherent sense. Of

course, objection will be made; but it will manifest itself in little

else but empty spluttering or impotent invective on the part of those

who mistake custom and association for reason, and fancy that the life

of a word is found in the form in which they are in the habit of seeing

it clothed.

“They order these matters better in France,” are the words with which

Sterne begins his _Sentimental Journey_. Any action of the sort just

mentioned is impossible with the men of the English-speaking race. We

have neither the machinery to use, nor the disposition to use it, if

we had it. There is nowhere, either in England or America, any great

centralized authority, literary or administrative, to which deference

if not obedience is felt to be due. With us in the United States

in particular, we have no national government which can authorize

examination of the subject, still less enforce any action. As little

respect is paid to the conclusions of scholars who have made the matter

a special study. With a great body of men the words of the veriest

ignoramus who is able to get access to the columns of a newspaper are

as likely to be heeded as those of him who has spent years in the

investigation of the character and history of English orthography. But

if the ignoramus is merely an ignoramus in this subject, if he chances

to be a man who has shown ability and gained deserved repute in some

other distinct field of endeavor, the authority he has justly secured

for himself in matters he knows a great deal about is transferred to

any pronouncements he chooses to make in a matter he knows little or

nothing about. In considering the construction or reconstruction of

a bridge or building, every one is willing to defer to the judgment

of experts. When, however, it comes to the consideration of spelling,

there is no one who does not have the comfortable consciousness that

on this question his opinion is distinctly more valuable than the

conclusions reached by the wretched cranks who have taken pains to

master the subject, and are necessarily hampered in the views they

entertain by the knowledge they have been unfortunate enough to acquire.

Therefore, as contrasted with other nations and races, we are at a

disadvantage. We have not the controlling influence of an academy. The

government cannot well take the initiative. If one party embraced it,

the other party would be fairly sure to set itself in opposition. This

would not be necessarily because of any dislike to the project itself,

but for the sake of making party capital. “If I were younger,” once

remarked Gladstone, speaking of the spelling, “I would gladly take

hold of this reform.” Had he done so, can any one doubt that whatever

scheme he proposed would have had arrayed against it all those who were

hostile to the views he advocated on other subjects, irrespective

of any feelings they chanced to entertain on this particular one.

Political machinery, so constantly used to effect reforms, is

consequently barred. In every English-speaking country the general

government cannot well take any action, except under the impulse of a

popular demand too wide-spread and too powerful to be resisted. There

is, furthermore, in this country a special difficulty. In America it is

not the action of the general government that is of importance, but the

independent action of the several states. Even if reform were carried

through in some of them, there would always be danger of discordant

measures being taken in others.

Only one resource, therefore, is left to the men of English-speaking

countries. It is by the slow processes of discussion and agitation. The

great mass of men must be convinced by methods which will convey to

the general mind the truths that are known now only to the few. They

must be made to see both the desirableness and the practicability of

change before any wide-reaching results can be secured. They must be

made to see the futility of the arguments by which men seek to bolster

up the pretensions of the existing orthography; the waste of time and

efforts involved in its acquisition, and even in its use. More than

all--though this is a matter little touched upon--they must be made to

recognize the actual mental injury wrought to the young by its present

condition. The accomplishment of this is not merely a great work, but

in English-speaking lands it is one peculiarly difficult. In other

countries it is necessary to convince those who have more or less

studied the subject; for in their hands lies largely the control of the

machinery of education. But with us it is necessary to convince those

who are unfamiliar with the subject, and who not unfrequently have had

their ignorance strongly reinforced by prejudice. In the multitude of

these is found no small proportion of the educated class.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] As this opinion of Professor Child has been questioned, I give here

an extract from a letter written by him for publication, and printed

in the _Home Journal_ of New York for June 21, 1882. This paper was

then engaged in gathering the opinions of scholars and men of letters

on the subject of English orthography. “One of the most useful things

just now,” wrote Professor Child, “is to break down the respect which

a great, foolish public has for the established spelling. Some have a

religious awe, and some have an earth-born passion for it. At present

I don’t much care how anybody spells, so he spell different from what

is established. Any particular individual spelling is likely to be more

rational than the ordinary.”

[2] _Times_, December 27, 1906.

[3] Act V, scene 1, line 269.

[4] Mrs. Cowden Clarke’s Concordance gives but thirty-four. She omits

the instance of its occurrence which is found in I _Henry IV._, act ii,

scene 4.

[5] The form _sepulchre_ is found in the folio of 1623, in _Richard

II._, act i, scene 3, and in III _Henry VI._, act i, scene 4.

[6] Addison’s _Remarks on Italy, etc._, ed. of 1705, _fiber_, p. 212;

_salt-peter_, p. 239; _scepter_, pp. 19, 124; _theater_, pp. 102,

155, 156, 433 (twice), 521; _theatre_, p. 50; _amphitheater_, pp. 57

(twice), 127, 176, 219, 224, 302, 345, 379; _amphitheatres_, p. 225.

[7] _Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World_, by Captain

Lemuel Gulliver, London, 2 vols., 1726. _Center_ appears in vol. i, pp.

60, 67; vol. ii, pp. 36 (twice), 37, 43 (twice); twice _meager_ appears

in vol. ii, pp. 63, 105.

[8] _The Rape of Lucrece_, l. 217.

[9] _Venus and Adonis_, l. 622.

[10] _Sonnets_, lxviii.

[11] _Sonnets_, cxlvi.

[12] _Sonnets_, xvii.

[13] _Venus and Adonis_, l. 931.

[14] I _Henry IV._, act i., scene 3.