:

dred years; though this as compared with the age of the Latin and Greek alphabets is a short period, it is a long one compared with many others. But this, though manifestly true as a matter of fact, is of too general a nature to be explanatory and a more specific reason is required. We shall find this, to great extent, in the diference already alluded to between the Greek and Latin alphabets as models, or frameworks, for the several secondary alphabets derived from them. The Greek was decidedly more phonetic than the Latin. Where the Latin made no distinction between the long and short A and O, the Greeks had their Epsilon and Eta (e and n) along with their Omikron and Omega (o and w). Where the Latin spelt the sound of th with two letters, or by means of an artificial combination, the Greek wrote e or (theta). Thirdly, the Greeks used the letter (kappa) wherever it was wanted: the Latins eschewed it, and used C instead. What this eschewal has led to we shall see in the sequel.

к

Though the Latin was the worst of the two models, there were degrees in its inferiority; or, to speak more correctly, there were some countries in which there was a Greek influence as well, and, by means of this, either improvements in the adaptation of the Latin letters were effected, or certain faults were avoided. In continental Germany, for instance, the k not only got admitted into the alphabet, but kept, and continues to keep, its ground. The first German alphabet, however, was of Greek origin. In Britain the influences were more exclusively Latin, and the k, though admitted, so to say, upon sufferance, was long treated as a stranger. At the present time, indeed, it is recognised; but whoever turns to a dictionary and counts the words which begin with it, will find that they are far fewer to the eye than to the ear, the reason being that more than half of them are found under C. At first, however, k was kept out of our alphabet altogether: simply because it was avoided by the Romans. But even in the Latin spelling it presents itself exceptionally. In fact, though a letter which, in all the alphabets of Latin origin, lies under disadvantages, it is one which, sooner or later, shows itself. At present, however, it is sufficient to connect its absence in a system of spelling with the Latin origin of the alphabet.

SECTION V.

THE ALPHABETS AND SYSTEMS OF SPELLING WITH WHICH THE ENGLISH MUST BE COMPARED.

The English alphabet, then, is an old one, and, more than this, an old one which from the beginning was formed upon an indifferent model. This was the Latin; but in the Latin, as a model or a framework, there were degrees. There was the Latin pure and simple, with no second influence to disturb it; and there was the Latin in certain quarters where Greek influences might, possibly,

be at work by its side. From the Latin in its more exclusive form the English art of writing was, probably, derived. This brings us to closer inquiry as to the details of its origin; for all that has hitherto been said about it has been of a very general nature. The Latin origin has been indicated; this, however, was done chiefly with the view of contrasting it with a Greek one. The question whether it was got directly from the Latin, or through some secondary language, still stands over; and though twenty years ago the inquiry would scarcely suggest itself, it is, at the present time, an important one.

Again; the beginning of the seventh century was only given as an approximation. All it meant was this,-that the English language was one of the older ones of Europe. How it stood in this respect with certain languages was only indicated. The antiquity of the alphabets of the languages of the German (Teutonic) and Keltic families, as compared with those of the languages derived from the Latin, and those of the Slavonic and Lithuanic families, was put prominently forwards; or changing the expression, the application of the Roman alphabet to the Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and French languages was shown to be recent. These, then, were eliminated from the field of comparison, which was thus narrowed to two families.

Of these (1) the Keltic gives us two alphabets, orthographies, or systems of spelling, both derived not only from the Latin, but from the Latin in its more exclusive form. They were both, of course, applied to languages other than Latin,-the British (Welsh) and the Irish (Gaelic). They were both connected with the same form of Christianity, that of the British Church. They were both, as far as we can judge, originally formed on the same principles, though afterwards they diverged, and are now to be contrasted, rather than compared with one another. We must take a very extreme view of the unimportance of the Early British Church, unless we assign to the Irish and Welsh orthographies a very early date. In any case, they are as old as the English; and probably, older. It will scarcely, however, be maintained that either of them has been subjected to the same amount of modifying or disturbing influences. Add to this that one of them, the Welsh, has been remodeled; so that, although at the present time the Welsh orthography is, in some respects, one of the best in Europe, it is not one which can be said to have either a long and active, or a sustained and continuous history.

2. Three alphabets may be assigned to the Teutonic or German class of languages, (a) our own, the English; (b) the German of Germany; (c) the Moso-gothic. Of these it may safely be said that the third in the order here given is the oldest. But the whole literature of the Moso-gothic consists in the remains of a translation of the Gospels, along with fragments of a fuller version of (probably) the whole Bible, and a few short records of certain sales or bargains

under the reign of the Gothic kings in Italy. The whole era, however, of the Moso-gothic alphabet lies between A.D. 370 and A.D.700 -this being an over-liberal estimate. Any comparison, then, of the Moso-gothic, notwithstanding its antiquity, as a practical working alphabet, with the English is out of the question and, as much will be said of it hereafter in connection with other parts of our subject, this is enough for the present.

In respect, then, of anything like equal antiquity, combined with an equally continuous history, it is only the German alphabet and orthography that can be compared with our own: and it is probable that if we knew the dates of the first-written specimens of either the German of the Continent, or the German of Britain, (that is, the Anglo-Saxon,) we should find but little difference between them. Each has been subjected to the influences of not less than thirteen centuries. In their relative exposure, however, to influences from without, there is no such agreement. There is no such fact in the history of the German language as that of the Norman conquest in England, by which a second language was introduced, a concurrent literature encouraged, and the cultivation of the native language, for more than two centuries, kept in abeyance. As for the mass of foreign words thus introduced, there is no approach to equality: for let us say what we may about the Gothic, the Teutonic, or the German structure of our tongue, it is as decidedly a mixed language as the German is a homogeneous one. Lastly, in respect to their grammatical structure, the English is in a different stage from the German. Notwithstanding, however, all this, the German orthography, though open to much improvement, is one of more than average goodness, while the English is, to say the least, more bad than indifferent.

SECTION VI.

THE PRONUNCIATIVE OBJECTION. THE DEFECTS OF

FRENCH ORTHOGRAPHY.

The French, the second worst language in the world for its system of spelling, though far behind our own for badness, owes its faults to a different cause. It was not, like the English, a language belonging to a different family from that of its alphabet; though, like the English, it was founded exclusively on a Latin basis. Two other causes favored its badness.

:

1. The French of Paris was not the dialect to which it was originally applied for the Provençal of the South and South-East was cultivated before the French of the North: in fact the Provençal and the French were, and are, two different languages.

2. The language, when first written, was in such a transitional state that it retained at the time when the alphabet was first applied to it, an inordinate number of forms which afterwards became ob

solete. Yet who could say at what time the change had gone so far that the spelling ought to be accomodated to it? No one. So the language changed while the spelling remained as it was.

Now this brings us to the Pronunciative objection. There is a difficulty in selecting the right pronunciation out of several conflicting ones. This, however, is the business of the speaker and not that of the speller: it is a point not of orthography but of orthoepy. All that spelling has to do is to represent such or such a sound, or combination of sounds. Whether it be the right one is to be settled by time. The Pronunciative objection, as Mr Ellis truly remarks, is a fault of the language, which it is not the function of the Phonetic speller to amend. Herein it agrees with the Homonymical.

And the two agree in this. They are not to be condemned on a mere inspection. Each inculcates the necessity of judgement and circumspection. It is possible that, in some exceptional cases, homonyms may create a deficiency which the context may not remove. And it is also possible, (indeed very probable) that real difficulties may arise which invest with a certain amount of validity the objection under notice. That it is desirable that spelling should have something to do with giving stability to a language few deny. But where and when is the fixation to begin? We are not, on the one side, to stereotype a language until the end of time; nor are we, on the other, to stamp the fictitious sanction of an Imprimatur on a word of which the form may be ephemeral or evanescent. These, and a few others, are the points wherein it well becomes us to consider the objections closely, seriously, with a sense of responsibility, and with the free admission of their legitimacy within a proper limit. The questions of Homonymy, of Pronunciation, and of the extent to which a phonetic orthography may be used for the secondary and subordinate purpose, (for such it undoubtedly is) of what is called the fixation of a language are, pre-eminently, those where the innovator must take certain objections from the objector's point of view. He must do so, to some extent, in the matter of etymology; but here he must do so most especially—perhaps, also, in the spirit of compromise.

SECTION VII.

THE REPRESENTATION OF LANGUAGE NEVER KEEPS PACE WITH THE CHANGES OF LANGUAGE ITSELF. THE BADNESS OF THE FRENCH SYSTEM OF SPELLING.

It is well to illustrate the leading causes of the badness of an orthography by giving prominence to the systems of spelling which are most decidedly affected by them. The English is bad, so is the French. Each, however, owes its badness to a different cause.

To a reader who is, at one and the same time, a good Latin scholar and a confirmed upholder of the etymological principle, the

French spelling may, possibly, be rather laudable than the contrary. It preserves the old forms, even though the modern language has rejected them. Thus, though it fails to represent the language as it is, it succeeds to admiration in telling us what it has been; and this in the eyes of an etymologist passes for a merit. Upon this, however, it is enough to say that the etymological objection against phonetic spelling is of more value in France than in England. It is certain also that though phonetic spelling is perhaps less required in France than in England, it would, if applied, disguise the language more;-as far, of course, as the eye, accustomed to the usual orthography, is concerned. This is because, in France, there are two languages,- -one for the ear, the other for the eye. But as the two are simply the same form of speech in different stages, there is (great as the contrast between them may be,) a principle, or the shadow of a principle, to give regularity to the system of their difference. The written French is Old French, even as AngloSaxon is Old English. In England, however, we have no such consolation, defence, or semblance of a system. In France, if twenty different words are found to differ from each other according as they are spoken or written, or as they are read or heard. there is a class to which each may be referred, and for each of such classes there is a rule. In England there is no rule at all. In this lies the great difference between the two languages in the valuation of their demerits. Yet the English and the French are among the leading languages of the world; second, to say the least of them, to none. But they are, facile primi, the first two in bad spelling. The French has been the least disturbed. It has also the advantage of its alphabet and its language belonging to the same family,—the Latin. But this is the main reason for its defects. It has kept up that kind of continuity with the mother-tongue which made the retention of old forms of spelling, long after the language itself had ignored them, so much of a habit as to end in its being a necessity. This, then, shows what happens when changes of language are not accompanied by corresponding changes in the representation of it; and, as this is one of the main causes of bad systems of spelling, the French language has been chosen as an illustration. At present this is the sole reason for our reference to it, though, when we come to details, it will be again referred to.

SECTION VIII.

THE ETYMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE.

Much more will be said about this hereafter, because, (as has already been mentioned,) it is one of the great practical points in the phonetic question; not so much on account of its own merits as because it enlists in its defence at least three-fourths of the scholarship of the kingdom. It is here merely foreshadowed in its