PREFERENCE IN ENGLISH SPELLING. 39 



invention called into being by the rise of the great middle class of 

 society, which desired to become familiar with the practises of polite 

 circles. Lexicographers came forward to supply the desired informa- 

 tion. Authors not to the manor born, and therefore unacquainted 

 with courtly usage, when moved to write, felt that they must conform 

 to the standards set up by the lexicographers, who claimed to give the 

 received usage, the jus et norma scribendi. Before the epoch of dic- 

 tionaries it appears not to have made the slightest difference whether 

 a writer spelled the word recede, for example, according to the present 

 accepted orthography, or whether he spelled it receed, receede, receade 

 or recead, all of which forms are found in manuscripts of a few cen- 

 turies ago. Some of these orthographic variations lingered into the 

 eighteenth century, though English spelling had probably become 

 stereotyped at least a century before this date. Yet the establishment 

 of the spelling was naturally a gradual process, and some words vacil- 

 lated a long time and never really became fixed. Of this more anon. 

 Proper names showed considerable latitude of spelling. Men of the 

 eminence of Spenser, rare Ben Jonson and Shakespeare, for example, 

 are said to have had no fixed practise of spelling their names, but 

 wrote them in a variety of ways. 



The lack of a standard authority of orthography necessarily gave 

 rise to much confusion and disorder in English spelling. This con- 

 fusion is reflected even yet in the present chaotic and unphonetic spell- 

 ing of our language. Few tongues are more unphonetic than the 

 English. This fact is recognized and efforts have been made to bring 

 our spelling into closer conformity with our pronunciation. Philolog- 

 ical societies on both sides of the Atlantic have been trying for the last 

 quarter of a century, at least, to reform English spelling; but only 

 meager success has been achieved thus far. 



The proposed reforms have been of two kinds, and they have vary- 

 ing aims. One, recommended by the extreme phonetists, is a reform 

 which contemplates a revision and enlargement of our alphabet. This 

 would result in a radical transformation of our written speech, and 

 chiefly for this reason it has found few ardent advocates. It may be 

 briefly described as a reform of the language. The other reform is 

 less revolutionary and contemplates mainly a simplification of our 

 present spelling, such as the omission of silent letters, the substitution 

 of 'f for 'ph' as in phonetics (fonetics) and of 't' for final 'd' as in 

 equipped (equipt) and similar emendations. Of the two kinds of re- 

 form the latter has, manifestly, more to commend it to popular favor. 

 This kind of reform may be termed a reform in the language. 



The public concedes the unphonetic character of English orthog- 

 raphy, but the conservatism of the Anglo-Saxon race is so binding that 

 the people are slow to adopt even the slightest recommendations of the 

 philological societies. A few American journals have had the courage 



