time of the pronunciation of the present age. Such a system introduced in CHAUCER's time would have saved Mr. ELLIS years of research in the Early English Pronunciation, and given results which now are impossible. Professor W. D. WHITNEY, however, has raised the question whether, when Mr. BELL makes a scratch on paper and utters a sound intended to be signified by it, we cannot reproduce that sound equally well whether or not the sign represents an exact phonetic analysis? In our opinion people generally will imitate the voice better than any verbal or pictorial representations; but we have known many instances in which the latter have been an indispensable aid in teaching a correct pronunciation. We conclude therefore, that the representative character in the symbols can be spared without great loss, provided we preserve as sacredly as a standard of weights and measures an exact description of the power of each written symbol for the benefit of the historians and teachers of the languages.

The question will now arise whether an exact alphabet would be of much value while we do not agree how to pronounce our words. Mr. ELLIS says, "the only chance of attaining to a standard of pronunciation is by the introduction of phonetic spelling." We must teach some pronunciation for all our words, and we may as well be forced to agree upon some form by the introduction of exact symbols.

When such a reform has been accomplished any one who has mastered the alphabet will be able to pronounce correctly all written words of all languages. This may seem too great a gain to be practicable, but we can never fully appreciate the advantages of such a reform till we consider that the natural effect of all reading will then be to correct all bad habits of pronunciation. The reading man will then be able to pronounce chasm as though it were written tshazm, as we have heard it from the pulpit, or to insert a French nasal in the word cow. Our speech will then gradually conform to the best standards and in a generation or two become beautifully uniform.

The objection has been made that such a change would destroy etymology. But instead of this it is plain that the defects of the present spelling embarrass etymology. Mr. ELLIS says, "the only true etymological spelling which can be conceived is one that is strictly phonetic." and " ground of philology alone we can truly say there is no etymology without phonetics."

on the

Others say they do not want to have to learn to spell again. Benjamin Franklin replied long ago to this objection by assuring the objectors that they would have less to do to learn the ideal alphabet and spelling entire than to finish the spelling they had begun. This is unquestionably true, since an exact alphabet will require no other learning to spell than simply to learn the powers of the letters and to know how to talk, i. e., pronounce correctly. Orthography, the lowest of philological pursuits, will then be replaced by Orthoëpy, the highest. Only a minute fraction, however, of the time now given the former will be required for the latter. A balance of several years will be left over to be applied to neglected branches or to productive industry.

Reading and elocution are too much neglected in the schools of to-day.

The greater part of what goes by that name is simple practice in spelling, or learning to recognize the words of our speech at a glance under the disguise of their capricious orthography. All this, of course, must precede elocution proper, and the former never being finished, the latter never begins. When the obstacles are removed we can well afford to give more attention to the art of CICERO and DEMOSTHENES, of CLAY and WEBSTER.

Are we then ready to consummate this dream of LEPSIUS and FRANKLIN? Probably not. We have many questions to settle before we can carry out so grand a phonetic reform involving popular co-operation. Our immediate work is with phonetic science, which is still in its infancy. According to Professor WHITNEY, "A thorough understanding of the mode of production of alphabetic sounds and of their relations to one another as determined by their physical character, has become an indispensable qualification of a linguistic scholar. And he who cannot take to pieces his own native utterance and give a tolerably accurate account of every item of it lacks the true foundation on which everything else should repose." These reasonable conditions are met by only astonishingly few at present; but their number is increasing. When phonetic science is sufficiently advanced, then we may safely attempt the formation of the new symbols. And when we have spread some knowledge of phonetic science throughout the country, and have adopted the simplest, most graceful, and most easily written and printed symbols that can be devised-then we anticipate that the people will be even eager to adopt a reform that can save them both time and money, as well as promote all intellectual and literary growth.

It is not necessary that we should complete the analysis of all languages before we put our own into its new dress. We may doubtless prudently adopt the characters needed for our own English, without limiting the power of the system to expand and cover all the capabilities of the human voice as fast as the extension shall be called for, either for scientific or more practical purposes. We ought to move forward in the most direct line toward the reform in America. If all the world gets ready as soon as we, we can start together. The difficulties need not be removed except as we come up to them. There is no danger but we shall find them all. If we do thorough work it will stand forever, and whenever we arrive at the goal we now contemplate, we shall unquestionably reproach both ourselves and our fathers that all our literary men used an instrument far clumsier than the wooden plow and the cross-bow in the age of steam and electricity.

Dr. HAGAR of Massachusetts, then introduced Rev. E. JONES, B. A., of Liverpool, England, who addressed the Department upon

PHONETIC REFORM.

This morning a copy of a magazine called the "Galaxy" was placed in my hand. Of this journal I know nothing, never having seen or heard of it before, but from its appearance it seemed to be a respectable publication.

I found an article on Orthography under the signature of RICHARD GRANT WHITE. Of this gentleman I know nothing whatever. On reading the article I said to myself, "If this be a respectable journal and R. G. WHITE a writer in whom the American people believe, if these are their prophets, and if such be their teacher, Heaven help them, say I!"

The whole burden of the article is just in this strain. "It would be very inconvenient for persons who have learned the present spelling to change their habits. Then this idea is developed and the proposed reform is burlesqued and caricatured in a manner most unworthy of a writer seeking the truth.

With regard to Spelling Reform in England there was a very general disposition to discover some solution of the problem which would not necessitate the introduction of New Letters in large numbers. Mr. ELLIS has shown this disposition by his proposed Glossic. Mr. PITMAN has weekly specimens of various plans of spelling by sound without New Letters in his Phonetic Journal.

It would appear that the following conditions were indispensable to the success of any scheme of Spelling Reform among the masses of the population. (1) That the New Spelling should be easily readable by those who can read the old. (2) That the New Orthography be such as can be taught to children in reading and spelling in a fraction of the time now spent upon them. It was maintained that all this could be done without the introduction of new letters at all. For example the Phonetic system would spell each of the following words, which never give any trouble in reading or spelling to learners, with two new letters each: chain, sheep, thing, shoot, shout. Now if the combinations ch were invariably kept to the sound in chain, there would be no difficulty in teaching reading and spelling and so of the other combinations. This principle of digraphs or combinations of two letters to represent one sound is found in many languages such as the German, the Welsh, and others, whose spelling is almost entirely phonetic.

The following paper by Dr. J. M. GARNETT, of Annapolis, Md., is not alluded to by the Secretary as having been read. It was probably not read. The place for it in the programme was immediately after Prof. SAWYER'S Report:

THE STUDY OF THE ANGLO-SAXON LANGUAGE AND

LITERATURE.

Considering the position which the English language holds at the present day-the wide extent of territory over which it is spread, the political importance of the two great nations by whom it is spoken, and the unrivalled literature which is enrolled in it—one would suppose that the historical study of the English language and literature would form a prominent subject of instruction in every higher institution of learning in Great

་

Britain and the United States. But what is the actual state of the case? Continual complaints come to us from abroad that so little attention is paid to this study in the schools and universities of Great Britain*; and as yet but few collegiate institutions in this country have made it a necessary part of their courses of instruction, or even afforded an opportunity for its pursuit, although the study of the language and literature is at least making its way into the curricula of some of our colleges and universities, the study of the older forms and works is limited to but few; and we are still taught that our language and literature begin with CHAUCER, or perhaps with SPENSER and SHAKESPERE, and the former of these two some would even exclude.

We are not concerned here with the terminology of the periods of the language, and think it a matter of small consequence whether we adhere to the old names of Anglo-Saxon, Semi-Saxon, and Early English, or, with some of the leading scholars of England, adopt other designations. The trouble is that these scholars are not at one among themselves, and until they agree upon some simple, distinctive terminology, we prefer to stick to the old names.† Whatever terms we adopt, the important point is that we should recognize the continuity of the language and literature, its growth and development into its present modern forms by external and internal influences—that there has been no displacement or obliteration of the old building, but a constant modification of the structure erected upon the same original granite foundation, which has held its own for over a thousand years, and, as far as we can see, bids fair so to do for a thousand years to come. However scholars may differ as to terms, all are agreed that there can be no historical study of English without a knowledge of its oldest forms, that is, of the Anglo-Saxon language itself. It is of no use to start any lower down in the series. Unless we make a knowledge of this language the basis of our studies, we are building on the sand, or rather we are building without any foundation at all, and shall, at every step, meet with difficulties which it is impossible to overcome, but having once acquired this knowledge,—which, with the numerous helps ? existing at the present day, is in the power of every one-we have gained a starting-point, from which our inquiries may branch out in various directions, and we may rest assured that we possess the key to unlock many of the difficulties in our path.

*In the Journal of Education (London) for April, 1876, we find a synopsis of the Report of the Syndicate appointed by the Senate of the University of Cambridge in the Easter Term, 1875, "to consider the requirements of the University in different departments of study." The Syndicate append a communication signed by several Professors and Tutors in the University, among others Rev. Walter W. Skeat, of Christ's College, noted for his studies in early English, which concludes: "The claims of the English language and literature upon an English University are so manifest that we content ourselves with recording the fact that there exists in Cambridge no chair of English, ancient or modern. Mr. Skeat has also addressed a voluminous communication, urging the necessity for the University to provide some teachers and encourage the study of English.

†See Professor March in Transactions of the American Philological Society for 1872, and Professor Lounsbury in the New Englander for January, 1876.

See Thorpe in Preface to Pauli's "Life of Alfred the Great," p. vi.

See the Manuals of Thorpe, March, Corson, Shute, and Carpenter.

To MATTHEW PARKER, Archbishop of Canterbury, students of English owe a debt of gratitude which we can scarcely overestimate. To him primarily is due the revival of Anglo-Saxon learning in England soon after the accession of Queen ELIZABETH; and this revival had its origin in the Reformation of the Church. We cannot, perhaps, attribute to the worthy primate altogether unselfish motives in his desire to disseminate a knowledge of the principles and practice of the Anglo-Saxon Church. Being a married man, he naturally desired to defend his position-which was not favorably regarded by the Queen,-by an appeal to the views of the early church on the celibacy of the clergy, and in 1562 he caused to be reprinted a work entitled " A Defence of Priests' Marriages, established by the imperial laws of the realm of England," in some copies of which work are additions by himself-if, indeed, he was not the author of the work-and "some of the allegations are set down in the Saxon_tongue.* This is the first printed specimen of "the Saxon tongue" known to exist; for the statement that the monks of the abbey of Tavistock in Devonshire had a font of Saxon type and printed a Saxon Grammar and other works, rests on tradition alone. The first font of Anglo-Saxon type was cut by JOHN DAY, at the instance of Archbishop PARKER, and the first work published by him was entitled, “A Testimonial of Antiquitie, showing the auncient Fayth of the Church of England, touching the Sacrament of the Body and Bloude of the Lord here publikely preached and also receaved in the Saxons time, above 600 years agoe; printed without date, but not later than 1567. This work was a homily of Aelfric, containing the doctrine of the Eucharist as received in the Anglo-Saxon Church, together with an English translation, and at the end the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments in Anglo-Saxon, with an interlinear English translation.

This then was another point in which the Archbishop desired to make known the doctrine of the early church. There was still a third, the reading of the Scriptures in the vernacular, and in 1571 we find issuing from the press of JOHN DAY, at the expense of Archbishop PARKER, "The Gospels of the Fower Evangelistes, Translated in the old Saxons Tyme out of Latin into the Vulgare Toung of the Saxons, newly collected out of auncient Monuments of the sayd Saxons, and now published for testimonial of the same." The work contains also the English translation from the Bishops' Bible, and a preface by JOHN FOXE, author of the Book of Martyrs, in the form of a dedication of the work to Queen ELIZABETH. The publication of these works shows that the object of the Archbishop in the revival of Anglo-Saxon learning was to promote the reformed religion. But others, at that time, and previously, had devoted themselves. to the study of the Anglo-Saxon language for the purpose of illustrating the history and antiquities of England, among whom were Joнn Leland— royal antiquary to HENRY VIII-who made a great collection of AngloSaxon MSS. from the suppressed monasteries, and, we are told, “appeared

*Strype's Life of Archbishop Parker," quoted in White's Preface to "The Ormulum," p. iv, and in Petheram's "Historical Sketch of Anglo-Saxon Literature," p. 32, from which works many of the historical facts stated in this article are taken.