SIMPLIFICATION OF FRENCH SPELLING 543 



that the way in which words arc written evokes an idea of beauty which these 

 same words would lose if they were written otherwise. The people who have 

 this feeling, which is very difficult to analyze, are stylists, caring more for 

 form than for substance, more for words than for ideas; more for the appear- 

 ance than for the words themselves. Possibly these same people suppose spell- 

 ing to be immutable in its nature and fixed by law; the exclusive use of recent 

 editions has left them in ignorance of the fact that many of these very words, 

 admirable in their present form, were written differently by the great writers 

 of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It would be interesting to know 

 if these words as they were written in the manuscripts of these authors would 

 be as beautiful or less beautiful. 



3. The objection which maintains that the proposed changes will lessen the 

 etymological value of words, has only an appearance of weight. It is the 

 opinion of those people who wish to exhibit their youthful studies. Such an 

 argument never has been and never will be advanced by a philologist. To 

 begin with, let us bear in mind, among other points, that these etymological 

 traces interest only the small number of those who have studied Greek and 

 Latin, and that it is not quite fair to overload spelling with useless letters, 

 merely for the satisfaction of a few students of etymology. In former times 

 this was all very well when only a small minority knew how to read and write. 

 But to-day spelling is intended for every one. 



4. The objection which maintains that different words written alike will be 

 mistaken for one another is so childish that I hesitate to make a serious refuta- 

 tion. Certainly there are those who insist that we shall no longer understand 

 each other if we write poids (weight) like pois (a vegetable). It is always 

 easy to make puns ; but the writers, had they spent a moment's reflection on 

 the subject upon which they give their opinions so freely, would have observed 

 that the French language in its present spelling contains a large number of 

 these homonyms, which are essentially different even though similar in pro- 

 nunciation and spelling. But these homonyms have never been considered a 

 cause for obscurity. Are there human beings so devoid of sense as to confuse 

 the poids (weight) with the pois (sweet peas), or petits-pois (green peas) 

 when the d is omitted from the former? Possibly; but theirs is a case for the 

 expert in mental pathology. . . . 



To sum up: it will not be disputed that our orthography is an incoherent 

 mixture of spellings belonging to different epochs, often modeled on conflicting 

 systems. Is it actually possible to reform spelling so as to make it absolutely 

 logical? The committee whose conclusions I have reviewed thinks not, be- 

 lieving that so extended a reform would necessitate a complete revision for 

 which the time is not ripe. But we can at least eliminate from our customary 

 spelling the most hideous anomalies, and, in a word, simplify it. To accom- 

 plish this all that is necessary in many cases is to reestablish the old forms, 

 unfortunately altered at the time of the Renaissance, notwithstanding objec- 

 tions from many thoughtful men of that period. In adopting this course we 

 are not revolutionizing the language, as our opponents constantly allege, per- 

 petually confusing language with spelling. We do not even propose radical 

 changes in spelling, and are accepting all its conventions, even when these are 

 not entirely satisfactory. We revert to the true history of the language, lost 

 at many points by ill-chosen innovations. Ours is really a work of preserva- 

 tion. I have shown that not a single objection advanced has any weight. One 

 thing is in our way — habit; that we shall overcome. 



In the more formal report to which his own incisive essay is pre- 

 fixed M. Meyer is able to deal with other aspects of the case. He 

 sees that the prospect of successive reforms in spelling will perhaps 

 alarm those accustomed to consider the manner of writing a language 

 as subject to fixed and immutable rules: 



But since it is impossible to hinder the progress of an idiom, and since it 

 if? as impossible to establish its pronunciation forever as to exclude it from the 

 vocabulary, it must be admitted that spelling is not a permanent and unchange- 

 able institution — that, on the contrary, from one time to another, it must 

 undergo modifications in order to remain in accord with pronunciation. How- 

 ever, even a superficial acquaintance with the history of our language is suffi- 



