Pitman has given us a key to unlock, at once, all the n of our most inconsistent and anomalous orthography. establish this claim, Dr. Stone exhibited the "phone dren" as marvellous spellers. He challenged for th hardest words, with a structure as remote as possible f laws of phonography, and would have had it understood that from the working of a system of perfect symmetr came forth, as a result, a knowledge of such grotesque, formations, as the words phthisic, and physic, pneuma rendezvous. Phonetics, he would have us understand, taught those little prodigies that the word intelligent must be spelled w l's, and diligent with only one. Now, we think, that those rare spellers must have b such (whether consciously to themselves, or to their te or not, we will not say) in the same way substan that all learners become good English orthographists; th by close attention to the aphonetic elements of the langua and we will not say that in thus observing all the anom facts and forms of our common mode of spelling, they diderive incidental aid from phonetics. We will go further admit, that a clear, vivid view of the general phonetic struc of our language would serve to render the exceptions to g ral laws, equally clear and vivid, and thus assist the memor retain those exceptions. But the same admission must be n in favor of the common mode of teaching English orthograp The common mode is amply sufficient to produce the same he if it be well taught. Every teacher knows that it is essen to success in spelling, that the pupil be established in knowledge of the nature and powers of the elements of spee and that if thus grounded he will readily notice the anoma of the language, and that the greater the anomaly the easier is for such a pupil to remember it. And therefore, it is, that su words as rendezvous and phthisic, and the like, are not so ha as the words valleys, fiery, intelligent, diligent, &c. But it is said that the Phonetic children" of Boston ha won great distinction over the pupils of the other city schoo who have competed with them. If the primary schools Boston or New Bedford could be taught by a teacher in t common mode of spelling, as earnest in his calling as Dr. Stor seems to be, and if select pupils could be trained with the e pectation of being tested in the presence of Governors an Counsellors, and especially in the presence of so grave a bod as the Massachusetts Teachers' Association-if they could b drilled beforehand in the spelling of all the hard words carefu ly culled and tabulated, what might we not still anticipate as th fruits of the old system? And if so humble an institution as an ་ old-fashioned spelling school, could be established in all the school districts of the Commonwealth, and such stimulants were brought to bear as the Boston phonetic children have been favored with, then we are sure that editors and proof-readers would find that the "schoolmaster was abroad," and hard at work. But not to dwell longer on the claims set up for the defence of the phonetic system, we will now refer to some of the posi tive difficulties and objections, which bear against any attempt to make it a branch of elementary instruction. Its advocates have aimed at nothing less than an entire reconstruction of English Orthography, and they would try to secure the aid of teachers to secure this result. Against this attempt there are the following objections: 2. If changes in orthography, to a greater or less degree, are possible, it is not the province of any teacher of the English language to make these changes. 3. The reconstruction proposed ought not to be made, even if it were possible, and we had it in our power to effect it. We say, first, that the proposed change of the alphabetic forms of the language is a work too difficult to be attempted. Among all the works of man nothing is so enduring as the forms of written language. The alphabet of a mature language used by a noble people, is as imperishable as the literature of that people. Hence we find no monuments of human art or wis dom so ancient as the symbols of thought and speech. We know not the elemental sounds which the Greek or Roman alphabet once represented. They have vanished away, being as frail and as unsubstantial as the lips or the breath that gave them utterance. But the thoughts embalmed in their written symbols of speech have been preserved, and they will never die. Their structures of marble and granite have crumbled to the dust, but the "all-devouring tooth of time" cannot destroy their alphabets. Well, then, might Ovid exult in the confidence of an immortal memory, when he said, Ore legar populi, perque omnia saecula fama, And the reason of this can be stated in a word, that the highest ends and uses of a written language would be lost, if its forms were mutable or subject to decay. It is comparatively of little account whether they be perfect in theory; but it is of the utmost importance that they be permanent in fact. When will Homer's Iliad, or the Hebrew Bible be printed phonetically because beginners at first can but "Just make out to spell ?" But it may be said that our language does not resem just mentioned, because its orthography is not fixed, historic languages. Our language is indeed youthful, though its alphabet ancient. It is true that in the course of 400 years many have taken place. The Roman alphabet has within t been adopted. But the reason of these changes is obvid ing their origin in the circumstances which gave rise to o language. The elements of our present English speed up by the contributions of different climes and ages, a flicting races, were long in the process of assimilation battle of Hastings made William of Normandy the conq England, and, in part, of the Anglo-Saxon tongue. Bu James's translation of the Bible laid the basis of a settled raphy. From that time the forms of the language have ways approximating to a fixed condition, not to one of ins and revolution. And the wider it has been diffused aro world, and the more its readers have been multiplied in al the greater has been the tendency to a uniform orthogra But, it will be said, changes do after all take place. J made many improvements. Our own great Lexicograph attempted some excellent innovations, and in part succ All this is admitted. But then the changes have in n been radical. They have been slowly made, and in spite of resistance. A life-time is needed to obtain the general c to spell the word phonetic without the k appended. An a bearing on this point has the battle of the two diction Worcester against Webster, with the Boston schools, ph and all, arrayed against the great innovator? We verily b many of the advocates of the phonetic system would give sooner than they would abandon Worcester. But, in the second place, if changes can be made, who make them? Not the Lexicographers, except to a li extent. Shall teachers and professors attempt this work? is not their vocation. Their duty is to teach what is w "What is written is written," is the law not less for the versity professor of rhetoric, than for the teacher of a co school. Who, then, may change the forms of written lang if they be changed at all? We reply, the masters of th and speech-the great poets and orators who write what a world will read. And the great masters of thought and have the right to choose their own forms of expression-a man may lawfully change those forms thus chosen. Cha or Shakspeare will not be printed to accommodate a mo spelling school. The Scotch dialect of Burns will not be alt according to the latest edition of Walker's dictionary. To as are unwilling to learn his dialect, his deathless words wil and ought to be without meaning. We do not believe that resemble those t fixed, like the phabet is very e have been al in no case give it up ? That common anguage, thought t all the d style, -and no Chaucer modern altered o such ill be at the works of Daniel Webster will ever be printed in the phonetic character for general circulation. Our final remark is, that the phonetic alphabet and orthography ought not to be introduced into the place of the common one, even if it were possible for us, of our own selves, to do it. "The gains of such an introduction," says Mr. Trench, "would be insignificantly small, while the losses would be enormously great." The ends of the fixed forms of a language are other and higher than to teach children how to spell it-be the process ever so easy or ever so hard. The fact that our present orthography abounds with strange and unreasonable anomalies, is no argument against the use of those anomalies for the interchange of human thought and the perpetuation of that thought. It is enough that those anomalies have the sanction of universal usage, and they will be retained. Do the advocates for their removal, really suppose that they found their way into our language, for the purpose of making our orthography hard for children to learn -even to the shedding of tears? These anomalies may be unreasonable in form, but they have a most rational use, derived as they are from the very circumstances which gave birth to our noble language, without which it would never have had existence. It is not then really a fault or dishonor that it contains them. Indeed, it is not even a misfortune, but rather the opposite of all these. For it is a recent language, mixed, not aboriginal. In its vocubulary it has representatives from most modern tongues, and rich contributions from the Latin and Greek. And in its written forms, the scholar's eye at once perceives the paternity of almost all its words. It may be difficult for foreigners to master such a language as ours, and be none the less worthy of their earnest pains-taking on that account, for it contains the garnered treasures of strength and beauty that have belonged to the dialects of all the noblest nations of the world's history. And therefore old Camden has justly, though quaintly said: "Whereas our tongue is mixed, it is no disgrace. The Italian is pleasant, but without sinews, as a still fleeting water; the French delicate, but ever nice as a woman, scarce daring to open her lippes for fear of marring her countenance; the Spanish majesticall, but fulsome, running too much on the o, terrible, like the Divill in the play; the Dutch manlike, but withall very harsh, as one ready at every word to picke a quarrell. Now wee, in borrowing from them, doe give the strength of consonants to the Italian, the full sound of words to the French, the variety of terminations to the Spanish, and the mollyfying of more vowels to the Dutch; and so like bees we gather honey of their good properties, and leave the dregs to themselves. And thus, when substantialnesse combineth with delightfulnesse, fulnesse with finenesse, seemlinesse with portlinesse, and currantnesse with staydnesse, how can the language which consisteth in sound other than full of all sweetnesse?" Since, then, our language is derivative, almost all i must have a history expressed in their written forms; w these forms there are associated and blended shades of and force which very often can be determined in no wa the written form. It would then be an evil, in very blot out of being at a stroke, all the history of almost th language, which is now most happily inwrought into its tary structure, and which is a repository of truth of su value to the scholar, and of the highest reason also to th whom are found knowledge and understanding, and sho hard sentences, and dissolving of doubts." Do not the very names by which we designate the system give us an illustration of the value of the histor of words? They are taken from the common thesaurus nical terms, bearing the changeless meaning and the i able form of the Greek words, which repel from themse application of the principles of that very system they ployed to define; thus in its very title and supers showing the whole scheme, in any other light than as an u theory, to be absurd and contradictory. The facts, then, or the fixed forms of English ortho however stubborn, or grotesque, or unaccountable, unreasonable, they may appear to the uneducated, ca forced from the language. There they must remain, child has nothing to do with them but to learn them if and learn them well, reserving his "obstinate questio sense and outward things" for the studies and judgmen maturer years. "I can conceive," says Mr. Trench, " of no method s ively defacing and barbarizing our English tongue, no that would go so far to empty it, practically at least, and of all the hoarded wit, wisdom, imagination, and histor it contains, to cut the vital nerve which connects its pres the past, as the scheme of Phonetic Spelling,' whic have been lately zealously advocating among us-the p of which is, that all words should be spelled as they are s that the writing should be in every case subordinated speaking. The tacit assumption that it ought so to be, is the pe error of the whole system. But there is no necessity should; every word, on the contrary, has two existence spoken word and a written-one for the ear, the other eye, and you have no right to sacrifice one of these, or e subordinate it wholly to the other. "A word exists as truly for the eye as for the ear, an highly advanced state of society, where reading is almost |