is a matter which scarcely requires proof, it is one which is very likely to be overlooked. Compared with the alphabets of Greece and Rome, all the alphabets of modern Europe are of recent origin. The English, however, is older than most of them. It had, probably, taken form, and been applied to spelling, as early as the first quarter of the seventh century, if not earlier. The general rule in the history of the introduction of an alphabet into the languages of modern Europe is that it coincides with the introduction of Christianity; so that where the Gospel enters, civilization and literature follow. Now this means something more than the mere art of spelling. It means the cultivation of the language to which the take place under very different circumstances, it is very uncertain in its extent. In the great countries of France, Italy, and the Spanish Peninsula, where not only the alphabet but the language was Latin, the practice of writing the native tongue came late: for, though the use and the value of the alphabet were known, the only language that was written by means of it was the Latin. Such being the case, we can scarcely compare the alphabets and orthographies of France, Spain, and Italy, in point of antiquity, with our own. The alphabets themselves were, doubtless, as old as the Roman conquests of the different countries. The application, however, of them to the vernaculars of the land was, in all cases, comparatively late.

alphabet is applied; and this may as

The first specimen of the language of Gaul, or France, dates from A.D. 842. It is the oath taken by Charles the Bald, the son of Charlemagne, by which his quarrel with his brother Ludwig was checked. It is a hundred years later than a very well spelt fragment of an Anglo-Saxon specimen quoted by Beda. It is Provençal rather than French. Still, it stands alone, nearly two centuries earlier than any succeeding piece of either French or Provençal of equal length. It is fairly spelt; the spelling, however, is not French in the ordinary sense of the term. Except, however, in the combination_dh in ajudha and cadhuna, it is Latin orthography applied to a Latinising language.

Pro Deo amur et pro Xristian poblo et nostro commun salvament d'ist di en avant, in quant Deus savir et poder me dunat, si salvarai eo cist meon fradre Karlo, et in ajudha et in cadhuna cosa, si com om per dreit son fradre salvar dist, in o quid il me altresi fazet: et ab Ludher nul plaid nunquam prindrai uni, meon vol, cist meon fradre Karle in damno sit."

In Britain and in Germany the case was different; for in Britain and Germany the languages were not of the Latin, but of the Keltic, and Teutonic families. In Britain, then, and in Germany the Latin alphabet was applied to the native languages earlier than elsewhere. The Polish, Bohemian, Lithuanian, Fin, and the other less important alphabets of Latin origin are of much later introduction the conversion of the countries to which they applied being later than that of either Germany or the British Isles.

Our A.B.C, then, has been in work for upwards of twelve hun

;

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 7) 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.

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