But not all the inconsistencies in our spelling have sprung from the careless work of the early printers. Some are the result of our etymological spelling. For instance, the sound of s in sure we represent by the symbol ti in motion, by sci in conscience, by ci in suspicion, by xi in anxious, by ce in ocean, and by sh in shepherd. It is obviously not fair to charge such an inconsistency as this to the sins of our erring early printers. Still, the early English printers have enough to answer for in corrupting the orthography of our language. They were grossly careless and indifferent, and showed but slight regard for the propriety of English orthography. We are not at all surprised to learn, in view of the gross errors they committed, that they were, for the most part, foreigners—Germans and Dutchmen—who did not use English as their vernacular and who did not, for that reason, know the language thoroughly. “As foreigners,” comments Professor Lounsbury, “they had little or no knowledge of the proper spelling of our tongue”; and he adds that “in the general license that then prevailed they could venture to disregard where they did not care to understand.” The result was the printing press brought chaos into English orthography in the multitude of books which it sent broadcast over the land. Some of the errors, it is true, were corrected subsequently, at the beginning of the eighteenth century, when an effort was made to reform English orthography and adjust it anew to the pronunciation. But many of the incorrect spellings which had meanwhile crept in through the introduction of printing were too thoroughly established by usage to be eradicated. They continue still in English orthography as a lasting monument alike to the crass ignorance and negligence of our early printers and to the arrant pedantry of our early proof readers. Thus our English orthography now in its crystallized state preserves those glaring defects as the amber the insects which, entangled in the liquid, are encased for ever.
It must not be inferred, however, that as soon as Caxton set up his press, English spelling was immediately stereotyped and fixed for all time. It required fully two, if not three, centuries, according to Ellis, for the picturesque diversity and latitude permitted the early scribes to be reduced to the dull, rigid uniformity now established by convention. Experiment after experiment was made by the typographers whose constant and ultimate aim was simplicity. The last radical change was effected by the seventeenth century when the spellings ee, oo, and oa were adopted by the printers. Even then a fierce struggle in orthography was waged, as, for example, that between sope and soap, until the conventional spelling at last triumphed. In the seventeenth century the writing ie for long e as in brief, believe, friend, chief, and the like, was finally established after a long and doubtful contest. In early times the spelling vacillated between frend and freend, chef, cheef, and chefe; and a scribe could take his choice. But of course the printing press sounded the knell of this orthographic liberty of the individual, and one must spell now according to convention. And if one does not know what this is, he must consult the dictionary.
The seventeenth century witnessed many important, yea, revolutionary, changes in our speech as a result of the social upheaval incident to the civil war. But there was very slight recognition of these in the contemporary orthography. The printers refused to alter the conventional orthography to suit the modifications in the spoken speech, and they threw the weight of all their mighty influence in favor of the traditional spelling and against any sweeping reform. They prevailed; and from that time down to the present they have resolutely discouraged any attempt at extensive revision of our traditional orthography. Hence our historic orthography with its teeming inconsistencies and absurdities has now come to be regarded with a feeling of reverence; and we naturally recoil from any far-reaching reform of it as we would from laying violent hands upon an heirloom which has passed down to us through many generations. We have become accustomed to associate a certain spelling with a certain word, and we do not desire to have this association broken up. We therefore feel like registering a strong and vigorous protest against any proposed reform of a sweeping nature which would disturb our present English orthography, however illogical, archaic, and arbitrary.
To be sure, some of our lexicographers have ventured to introduce a revised spelling here and there. Dr. Johnson essayed this in his epoch-making dictionary, published about the middle of the eighteenth century. Indeed, he foisted not a few absurd and arbitrary orthographies into our language, which have contributed to bring our spelling into disrepute with those who clamor for “fonetic reform.” Let us note some of these. Johnson threw the weight of his authority in favor of comptroller against the older controller, although he gave both a place in his dictionary. He likewise harbored foreign and sovereign in his dictionary, leaving the older forrain and sovran to shift for themselves. He adopted debt and doubt with the epenthetic b, to the exclusion of the older and correct dett and dout. He lent the weight of his influence to establish a misleading and useless s in island, which used to be written iland. But perhaps he felt that the word was too closely associated in the popular mind with isle for iland to prevail. On the other hand, he retained the old spelling ile, which we have discarded for the etymological aisle, adding that isle was in his judgment a corrupt writing for aile, then also current. His uncertainty as to the etymology of the early English agast led him to write it also aghast, which has since triumphed over its quondam rival. He gives the precedence to delight, to the utter defeat of delite, its erstwhile competitor for popular favor. He rejected the simpler spelling ake for the less familiar ache, out of deference to its Greek origin, yet he endeavored to preserve a useless k in almanack and musick and similar words. He made a distinction without a difference in his spelling of the final syllables of such words as accede, exceed, precede, and proceed. But it is idle at this distant day to arraign Dr. Johnson on the score of his spelling. Let us therefore dismiss the indictment against his arbitrary orthography. Some of our present authorities on English spelling are not entirely free from reproach in this particular. The truth is, even yet our English dictionaries are not a unit as to approved spelling. We have not yet attained to absolute uniformity in the matter of our orthography. For, according to Ellis, there are still well-nigh twenty-five hundred words in the English language the spelling of which is unsettled and indeterminate. But we experience no serious inconvenience as a result, even if we have no preference as to what dictionary we should follow as a guide. In fact, any dictionary gives us a choice between worshipped and worshiped, traveller and traveler, center and centre, and similar words, in the case of which usage still wavers and is divided almost equally. Some excellent authorities still cling to the etymological spelling of words of classic origin, such as hæmorrhage, diarrhœa, æsthetics, œconomics, and æstivate, to mention only a few of a large class the spelling of which vacillates. Others, again, sanction this spelling, but throw the weight of their influence on the side of the simpler form. This simply proves that there is some degree of variation even in our accepted orthography. After all there is no fixed standard of English orthography, just as there is no absolute standard of English pronunciation. And yet there is a narrower margin of variation in our accepted orthography than there is in our received pronunciation.
The movement for the reform of English spelling is beginning to engage the attention of the public. The Simplified Spelling Board has already entered upon a campaign which holds out some hope of success. It remains to be seen what practical results will be accomplished. Scholars of acknowledged eminence are lending the influence of their authority to the movement. But there is a mighty wall of bigoted conservatism, to be battered down before a movement so sweeping in its aim and scope as “spelling reform” can make much headway. The history of all similar attempts in the past is not such as to hold out great promise to the present reformers or inspire them with unbounded confidence. Still, intelligent, well-directed and untiring effort ought certainly to be rewarded with a reasonable degree of success, and surely there can be no question that there is room for improvement in our English spelling. If we had such an institution as the French Academy, no doubt the problem would be simplified. The outcome of the present campaign for the revision of our English spelling will be awaited with no little interest.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] See p. 219.
[2] Vol. I, p. 22.
[3] See [Authority in English Pronunciation].
[4] Early English Pronunciation, I, p. 26.