SlMl'LlMCATJt)N UF lixNGLiSlI. 591 



are more than counteracting tliis ettort by their — sometimes in- 

 temperate — love of champagne in the spoken and written word. 



Sl.Ml'LlFRATlON OF SpEI.LIA'G. 



Another and perhaps a still more important matter is the 

 need for a simplified spelling of English. This is an old sub- 

 ject of debate, and 1 need not go into the matter at any great 

 length. 



Some years ago 1 received, from the Siniplihed Spelling 

 Board of America, an avalanche of interesting pamphlets. In 

 these pamphlets the case for reform is put very effectively and 

 very sensibly, and a few pertinent extracts will not be out of 

 place. 



(i) " The English language is on the wa\-, as many believe, 

 to become an international language. Eor this destiny it is 

 peculiarly fitted by its cosmopolitan vocabulary and its gram- 

 matic simplicity. It is much easier to learn than any highly 

 inflected language can be, and it has the immense advantage over 

 any invented language that it is the organ of a noble literature 

 and of a civilization already widely diffused in all i:)arts of the 

 earth. There is, however, a widespread and well-grounded con- 

 viction, that in its progress our language is hampered bv one 

 thing — -its disordered and intricate spelling, which makes it a 

 puzzle to the stranger within our gates and a mystery to the 

 stranger beyond the seas. Englisli is easy and infmitly adapt- 

 able ; its spelling is difficult and cumbersome.' 



(2) " Some of the novelists — not the most distinguisht, of 

 course — have opposed simplification. Many of the poets — and 

 not a few of the foremost — have advocated it. Tennyson, for 

 one, was an Honorary Vice-President of the English Spelling 

 Reform Association : and Landor was outspoken in his desire 

 to make English spelling more exact as an instrument for 

 literature. Matthew Arnold suggested a commission to review 

 English sj)elling, ])ointing out evident anomalies and suggesting 

 possible amendments. M. Eaguet cites a number of leaders of 

 Erench literature who have advocated simplicity of orthograi^hy, 

 and who have themselves insisted on the simplification which 

 best conveyed their meaning. Ronsard, for example, advised 

 l)oets to avoid all superfluous letters and to use them as soberly 

 as possible, ' awaiting a better reformation.' Corneille and La 

 Eontaine, Voltaire and Sainte-Beuve, proclaimed the same doc- 

 trin, either bv their preaching or by their practis .... 

 -Vnd Sainte-Beuve declared perfectly vain the contention that 

 needless letters should be kept in a word to reveal its deriva- 

 tion, ' since a letter or two will never help the ignorant to recog- 

 nise the origin of a word, and the educated will know it anyhow.' 

 (Professor Brander Matthews.)" 



(t,) Professor Lounsbury writes: "T venture to say that 

 there is not either in this country [America] or in England a 



