1888.] 331 (Phillips. 
accordingly consulted various English Dictionaries, of which I subjoin a 
list, from the year 1656 to the present time, with the following results, 
Veit 
1. That the name zee for zed (or dzeard,* as the letter was formerly termed), 
seems to have made its appearance in the first edition of Webster’s Dic- 
tionary of the English Language, published in 1828. But in the editions of 
that work, published respectively in 1860, 1864 and 1869, and possibly 
earlier, zed is given as the Hnglish name of this letter, while zee is the 
American. It is noteworthy that Webster seems to have no authority for 
his change of nomenclature, nor can I find in his published writings any 
reason therefor, unless it be perhaps that some petty local peculiarity in 
the small country towns of New England led him to believe that no other 
pronunciation could be a correct one. In a Dictionary of the English 
Language, “by an American Gentleman,’’ published in Burlington, New 
Jersey, in 1818, the name is given as zed. 
As conclusive of former usage, the passage in Lear, Act IT, Scene 2, 
may be quoted ; 
“Oh thou Zed! thou unnecessary letter,” 
I have not been able to find in Ben. Johnson’s English Grammar any 
usage bearing on this point. 
2. The analogy with the similar letter 2 of the German alphabet, of 
which the name is tseét, certainly deserves respect. 
Freeman, in his impressions of the United States (p. 84), writes: “I 
think [ see another instance of the schoolmaster in the name which in 
some parts of America is given to the last letter of the alphabet. This in 
New England is always zee; in the South, it is zed, while Pennsylvania 
seems to halt between the two opinions. Now Zed is a very strange name, 
* * * Does it come from the old form dzard * * which I was de- 
lighted to find remembered in America. * * * But gee is clearly a 
schoolmaster’s desire to get rid of the strange sounding zed, and to make 2 
follow the analogy of (some) other letters. But this analogy is wrong; @ 
ought not to follow the analogy of 0b, d, t, but J, m, n, 7, and above all of 
its brother 8, so that if we are not to have ged, the name should clearly be 
CBs, 
But there seems no necessity or reason why any change whatever 
should take place in this respect. 
3. From the forty-seven dictionaries which I have consulted I obtain the 
following result : 
NAIC Ofte Biter SVON AG BEC «ys c's dissin seme ener nee sls c 4 oN cub ne ecu anu 
“* given as zee (none earlier than 1828, and all American)......... 3 
F HOULOUIGD HOM PIVENAY Allis ca taivat evdu ube coves veawcule VobeasneO 
Av 
* Nares’ Orthoepy, tr, 188, London, 1792, speaks of the letter as izzard; than which, 
however, he considers that the name zad would be “ more elegant and proper,” 
