G. W. was a spelling reformer, one of the many writers who, from early Elizabethan times onwards, have been critical of traditional English orthography and have made proposals for improving it. Although nothing that could be called a spelling-reform “movement” existed until the nineteenth century, there were earlier periods when the subject was much in the air, when a number of people were writing about it and reading and discussing each other’s ideas. The publication of Magazine does not fall at one of these times; it comes, in fact, in the very middle of a recession of interest in spelling reform which lasted almost a hundred years. From about 1650 to 1750 there were few critics of our orthography, and they were usually neither very strong in their criticisms nor radical in their proposals for amendment. G. W. is thus a somewhat isolated figure, and his scheme for reform would appear, in its details at least, to be fairly original.
The greater part of the pamphlet is given over to expounding the illogicalities and inconsistencies of the established spelling, and here G. W.’s style of writing, which is colloquial, racy and allusive, is effective enough. It is not so well suited, however, to orderly and clear exposition of his proposed amendment--unfortunately, since this is what is likely to be of most interest to us today (and numerous misprints increase the difficulties of grasping his proposals). Perhaps there was, or was to have been, a sequel which would have stated his reforms more systematically; that this may have been the case appears from the statement on p. 25 that the alphabet “is preparing,” and from the mention, on the last page, of “the ensuing Batl-dur” (i.e. battledore or hornbook). His remedy, briefly, is to replace digraphs by new symbols: “more Letters would do well in the Alfabet, but fewer in most words” (p. 25); and, like John Hart before him (whose works perhaps he knew) and Bernard Shaw after, he draws attention to the economies to be gained from this: “if fewer Letters will serve the turn, ’twill save Paper and Ink, and ’tis strange, if not labour too” (p. 5).
On p. 32 is exhibited “a compleat Alfebet” of 34 symbols (it is not complete, for L has, apparently inadvertently, been omitted). Although there is no indication there of the value each symbol should have, that of most of them can be worked out, with some labor, from the rest of the pamphlet (though a few must probably remain mysteries). I have commented elsewhere[3] on this scheme of reformed spelling; it appears to us today to be theoretically quite creditable, at least as far as the consonants are concerned. The traditional alphabet is enlarged by providing a separate symbol for the italicized sounds in each of the following words: thin then church judge shall measure when sing; these symbols are obtained partly by creating new ones, partly by redefining existing letters. In two cases existing letters are redefined in accordance with a rather odd principle—that the traditional name of a letter must decide its value. Hence h is used to spell church (which becomes “hurh”), and g is used to spell judge (which becomes “gug”). This of course makes it necessary for G. W. to include among his new symbols one for /h/ and one for /g/. The new symbols as used in the pamphlet are produced by inverting or reversing existing letters; but these may possibly be makeshifts, used in place of more ambitious shapes which were beyond the reach of his printer; he suggests, for instance (p. 20) “the sign Taurus with a Foot-Ball between his horns” as one of his vowel symbols. On the whole, we find the vowels much less systematically tackled than the consonants, and it is proposed that accents (“cambrils”) should for the most part be used to provide extra symbols; the pamphlet, however, only exemplifies this sporadically.
Magazine contains a considerable number of words, and a few consecutive texts, transcribed partly or wholly in the new system of spelling, and these necessarily will have to be assessed as evidence of contemporary English pronunciation by students of the subject. It is not easy to be sure how accurate a phonetic observer and transcriber G. W. was, but if we make some allowance for misprints, we find a certain consistency in his transcriptions, and an apparent freedom from any bias given by the traditional spelling, which make one think he was moderately reliable. In this connexion it is of some importance to find out, if possible, where he came from. He shows familiarity both with northern and western types of speech; but although he seems to imply, on p. 7, that he is not a North-countryman, E. J. Dobson has found, on the basis of certain forms which appear in the pamphlet, that there is a strong suggestion that he spoke a northern dialect.[4]
Until recently I had been able to form no idea of the identity of G. W. However, it new seems to be very possible that he was John White, a Devon schoolmaster, and author of The Country-Man’s Conductor in Reading and Writing True English, which was published in Exeter in 1701.[5] The name John, in G. W.’s reformed spelling, would of course begin with G (it is indeed so spelled on p. 15). White was interested in spelling reform, as we know from various remarks in his book; and if he was G. W., it would explain the familiarity shown in Magazine with western dialect. What is particularly striking, moreover, is the similarity of White’s style to G. W.’s, as the following quotations from The Country-Man’s Conductor will show: of certain grammarians, “you shall seldom hear them speak Latin but in Ale-Houses, or when they are well oil’d”; of specimens of early English, “some may laugh at it, and thereby expose their rusty Teeth that will look as old as the English”; of using an accent to show long vowels, “this would look strange ’till it come in fashion, but in time would set as tite as Topknots do now.”
One final resemblance must be mentioned. Whether or not White was G. W., there can hardly be any doubt that Magazine was printed by Samuel Farley of Exeter, the printer of White’s book. The typographical similarity between Magazine and The Country-Man’s Conductor (and other works printed by Farley) is too complete to be coincidental. Not only are the identical fonts used, but there are numerous other points where the general manner of printing is the same.
Further research may confirm White’s authorship, but there is certainly no other obvious candidate among the writers of the time.
David Abercrombie
University of Edinburgh