decorated are intended merely to make them pretty as well as useful; but a picture, a statue, and a bas-relief are of no actual use, and are produced for the sake of giving us artistic pleasure only. The two kinds of art thus distinguished are commonly known as Industrial Art and Fine Art respectively. But it is really almost impossible to draw any hard and fast line between them, because they merge so gradually into one another. For example, a vase is hardly at all useful, and is almost purely ornamental; yet the making of vases and of other decorative pottery is generally considered as a branch of industrial art, owing to the fact that most pottery is purely useful in character. Nevertheless, we may always take fine art, and especially the highest art, that of painting, as the best guage of the artistic development reached by any particular nation at any particular time: because, being wholly unconnected with the necessities of daily life, it is little or not at all influenced by considerations of utility, such as those which must guide us in the manufacture of a chair or a teacup. Architecture, which deals with form in the abstract, as employed in building, is necessarily much bound down by the habits and manners of the particular time and place; sculpture, which deals with form in the imitation of the human figure,

up, like our whole civilisation, upon the ruins of the Roman Empire, from which it has borrowed its architecture, its sculpture, its painting, and even its music. And since Roman art, again, was partly derived from that of Greece, and Greek art from that of Egypt and Assyria, it becomes necessary for us, in order rightly to understand the artistic spirit of modern times, briefly to glance at these earlier schools from which our

though free from this bondage, is yet limited to reproducing shape alone without colour; but painting, having no end save that of giving us pure artistic enjoyment, and being able to employ both form and colour, can present us with every phase of human emotion or of natural beauty. Accordingly, while we shall attribute due importance throughout to the industrial arts as well as to sculpture and architecture, we shall employ the works of the great painters, in almost every case, for our illustrations, as embodying in their highest shape the artistic ideas of each race at each epoch of its development.

All the great civilisations, and even all barbaric or savage tribes, have had a distinctive type of art of their own, which has shown itself alike in their painting, their sculpture, and their industrial arts. For example, everybody at once recognises a Chinese jar, or a Chinese picture, or a piece of Chinese ivory-carving; and everybody sees at a glance that they have a certain Chinese character in common, which marks them off distinctly from all Western products. Similarly, we recognise a different style of workmanship as being Indian, another as Egyptian, and a third as Assyrian; and we notice that there is a sort of general likeness running through all the works of each of these schools, which clearly distinguishes them from each of the others. Now, our own type of art-the modern European type-in the midst of whose products we are all living, naturally interests and concerns us all far more closely than any other. This modern European type has been formed from the earlier types belonging to the same stream of civilisation. It contains elements directly or indirectly derived from the Roman, Greek, Assyrian, and Egyptian schools. It has nothing at all to do with Oriental art, whether Indian, Chinese, or Japanese, except by remote association; but it is built

own school inherits so many of its characteristics. Hence, we will begin by a short description of those artistic worlds which preceded the world in which we ourselves are living.

But since modern civilisation ic mainly a revival and expansion of the ancient civilisation of the Roman Empire, undertaken by those nations which have grown out of the barbarous tribes who broke down that Empire about the fifth and sixth centuries after Christ, it follows that the more detailed history of modern art must begin with the beginning of the revival in question. After the fall of Rome, there intervened in Europe that period of comparative anarchy and barbarism known as the Dark Ages, lasting to about the eleventh century. From the eleventh century onward, a new civilisation began to develop itself from the fragments of the Roman state; and this civilisation has

finally reached its present height in England, France, and Germany. But it was in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries that art, and especially the great master art of painting, began to rise again from the degradation into which it had fallen after the collapse of the Roman power. And it naturally

rose first in Italy, the native home of the old civilisation, and the land where the relics of that civilisation still most fully lingered. The two great men who first set painting on its modern path of development were CIMABUE and GIOTTO, two artists of Florence, about whom we shall have much more to say hereafter. So that we may sum up the plan mapped out for us here as being the history of art in general, and more especially fine art; and in the history of fine art we shall again deal mainly with the annals of painting since the days of Cimabue and Giotto.

It is not possible for all of us to make ourselves familiar at first hand with the works of the greatest painters. Many of them are only to be found in galleries and collections abroad-at Paris, Dresden, Rome, and Florence. But by means of engravings we can at least form some idea of their style and feeling, and so learn to judge of their chief merits though we must always lack in this way the peculiar character of the colouring and the special touch of the master. A general knowledge of the history of art, however, gives a new meaning to innumerable objects which we see around us in our everyday life, and by educating our taste, through familiar intercourse with the works of those men whose taste has been highest and purest, it has great value in forming the tone of our minds and refining our characters. For a purely scientific education is apt to make men's lives too hard and one-sided. Science conduces to intelligence, but art conduces to that deeper moulding of our natures which we know as culture.

LESSONS IN SHORTHAND.-I.

INTRODUCTION.

THE system of shorthand which we shall present to our readers for their study and practice is that invented by Mr. Isaac Pitman, of Bath. The merits and the justly earned popularity of this system are so great that we are convinced no other system would be accepted by our readers. The author holds copyright in it, and we have his consent for its appearance in the POPULAR EDUCATOR. Our first lesson will consist of a few preliminary observations on language in general, and its representation by alphabetic signs. In the next lesson we shall set our pupils to work in writing the shorthand characters. The system is not so formidable as to dismay any persons really desirous of mastering it. Regular exercises of half an hour a day should produce useful results in two, and fair proficiency in six months.

An easy and distinct mode of communicating our thoughts and feelings to similarly constituted beings, is one of the first and most pressing wants of social life. Looks, signs, gestures, are not in all cases sufficiently expressive, and it would be difficult to imagine that two human beings, whose vocal organs were unimpaired, should pass any considerable length of time in each other's company without using articulate sounds as their medium of communication. Indeed, we never find a family of human beings without a common language. As long as intercourse between family and family remains difficult, each family has its own language. Facilitation of intercourse diminishes the number of dialects; and now that travelling is becoming so general, we may look forward with some degree of hope to a time when "the whole earth" shall again be "of one language and of one speech." But however great the facility of travelling may be come, there will always exist a necessity for a means of communication independent of personal intercourse. To effect this, recourse must necessarily be had to durable, visible signs. The day may be far distant in which a universal language will be realised, but the means by which it will be expressed when it has grown into existence, and which, if previously prepared, may have great influence on its formation, may be already developed. The human organs of speech are the same in all the world, their mode of action is the same, and therefore the sounds which they are capable of producing are the same. From these sounds, which probably do not exceed one hundred for the expression of all the languages in the world, each group of families, called a nation, has adopted a comparatively small number to express its own ideas. But the first persons who struck out the noble idea of representing the sounds of speech, were not acquainted with any languages beyond their own; or, at most, beyond the group of languages to which their own belonged; and they consequently limited their signs to the expression of those elements only with which they were acquainted. Their success was various; but in one of the oldest systems of writing arranged on this principle, the Sanscrit, we have an example of the most perfect attempt at representing the elements of spoken sounds by visible signs that have yet been adopted by a whole nation as the dress of their literature.

The European languages, it is well known, are closely related to the Sanscrit, and a very slight modification of the Sanscrit characters would have fitted them for the representation of the elements of European sounds. But it was not to be. The Europeans probably left India before the invention of writing; and the idea of representing the clementary sounds of speech by visible signs seems to have been conveyed to them from a totally different quarter. The languages known as the Semitic, namely, the Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic, contain sounds very dissimilar to the European, with, of course, some similar or identical; and the first imperfect attempt to represent these sounds in a kind of skeleton character, was brought by commerce from Phoenicia to Greece. The Greeks adopted the characters of the Phoenicians, and as their pronunciation of the Phoenician names for the first two characters in the scheme was alpha, béta, the term "alphabet " has descended to modern times as the name of any collection of symbols which represent the elements of spoken sounds. That this alphabet did not represent the Phoenician language with great accuracy, is more than probable; but it certainly represented the Greek language much worse. The Greeks contented themselves with rounding the forms of the letters, and add ing one or two characters, chiefly contractions, and thus left the

alphabet to come down to posterity. But the mischief of he orignal error still remains. The Romans adopted the Greek characters, with a few unimportant variations; notwithstanding which, it remained very inadequate to the representation of Latin; while the northern nations who came down like locusts upon the Roman empire seized upon the Roman letters among the other spoils, and violently contorted them for the representation of languages which differed most remarkably from the Latin, both in the number and quality of the elementary sounds. Some few (the Sclavonic, for example) were happy enough to escape this second Babel, and rejoice in a convenient alphabet of their own. But each nation that did use the Roman alphabet, used it in its own fashion, and the variety of fashions thus introduced was, as may be supposed, very great. At length, out of a mixture of Saxon, Danish, French, Latin, and Greek elements, arose our own tongue, harsh and uncouth at first, but gradually winning its way, and now bidding fair, by its own inherent merits, by the richness of its literature, and by the extent of our commerce, to become, if not the universal language itself, its immediate progenitor. "The English language," observes the late eminent philologist, Professor Jacob Grimm, "possesses a power of expression such as was never, perhaps, attained by any human tongue. Its altogether intellectual and singularly happy foundation and development has arisen from a surprising alliance between the two noblest languages of antiquity-the German and the Romanesque-the relation of which to each other is well known to be such that the former supplies the material foundation, the latter the abstract notions. Yes, truly, the English language may with good reason call itself a universal language, and seems chosen, like the English people, to rule, in future times, in a still greater degree, in all the corners of the earth. In richness, sound reason, and flexibility, no modern tongue can be compared with it-not even the German, which must shake off many a weakness before it can enter the lists with the English."

But into this language, which grew up almost unawares, as a wild plant in a fertile soil, the mode of writing each word was (with, of course, frequent variations) copied from the language from which the word itself was derived; each of these languages using the Roman alphabet after its own fashion. Custom sanctioned the abuse, and at the present day we have a mode of spelling so far removed from any apparent attempt to represent the sounds of speech, that we should scarcely have guessed there had ever been any intention of doing so, had we not known its history. The English language, although arrived at a high pitch of refinement, is, in its dress, almost in the primitive ideagraphic stage. Its words are symbols of ideas rather than of sounds, and it is only after severe, long, and harassing practice that we can be sure of associating the right sound with the right sign. "The present alphabet," observes Mr. Ellis, in his admirable "Plea for Phonetic Spelling," "considered as the groundwork of a system of orthography in which the phonetic system prevails, is an entire failure. It is defective in means for representing several sounds, and the symbols it employs are used in senses so various that the mind of the reader becomes perplexed. Digraphs must be looked upon as single letters quite as much as the single letters themselves; for they have not the value of a combination of letters, but of one letter. Viewed in this light, the English alphabet will be found to consist, not of twenty-six letters only, but of more than 200! and almost every one of these 200 symbols varies its meaning at times, so that, after having learned one meaning for each of them, the reader has not learned all their meanings; and having learned all their meanings, he has no means of knowing which one he is to apply at any time. These assertions are so extraordinary, that they require to be strictly proved." This Mr. Ellis proceeds to do in an elaborate series of tables. "We violate every principle of a sound alphabetical system more outrageously than any nation whatever. Our characters do not correspond to our articulations, and our spelling of words cannot be matched for irregularity and whimsical caprice."

To this disregard of the principles of a true orthography, and the consequent difficulty of acquiring a correct knowledge of spelling and pronunciation, may be referred the fact that millions speak the English language who cannot read or write it. It also causes a great waste of time in the attainment of the elements of learning by the young. Many practical educators have considered the adoption of a system of orthography by

which these evils would be removed, as highly desirable, but it has generally been thought to be unattainable. The truth which Shakespeare has embodied in the well-known lines

"There's a Divinity that shapes our ends,
Rough-hew them how we will,"

should ever inspire men with energy and perseverance to do something, however small, to rectify error, and replace evil by good. That which few had courage even to hope for, has been realised through the apparently unimportant circumstance of the publication, in 1837, of a new system of shorthand, based on an analysis of the English spoken language. The author of this system of Phonography had originally no intention to disturb the established orthography of the language, and in the third edition of his work, published in 1840, he observes, "It is, of course, Utopian to hope to change the printed medium of intercourse of the millions who speak the English language; but it is not extravagant or hopeless to attempt to find a substitute for the complicated system of writing which we at present employ." In about a year after this opinion was published, the success of phonetic shorthand writing led many who employed the system to ask why the principle of phonetic spelling, so advantageous in writing, should not be applied to printing. The blessings that would follow the introduction of a natural system of spelling, and the evils of the current orthography, then began to appear in their true light; and after many attempts to construct a phonetic printing alphabet, with corresponding forms for longhand writing, phonetic printing commenced in January, 1844, in the Phonotypic Journal. We are encouraged to hope, from what has already been effected in the production and dissemination of books printed phonetically, that, in the course of time, the current orthography will give place to a system in which the phonetic idea will be uniformly respected. Several attempts to construct and bring into use a phonetic alphabet have been made at different times, by men eminent in literature; but these attempts were characterised by extreme inattention to details, and society had not in any degree been prepared for the change. The cause of orthographic reform was pioneered by Sir John Cheke in 1540, by Bishop Wilkins in 1668, and by Dr. Franklin in 1768. In our day there are two notable phonetic systems besides Pitman's-one termed the Glossic, devised by Mr. Ellis, the other termed the Romic, devised by Mr. Sweet. It would be almost useless to attempt here any explanation of these comparatively experimental systems. Suffice it to say, that the Glossic is simply a compromise with existing forms of spelling, by which a certain proportion of anomalies is dispensed with, and the labour of teaching orthography is reduced by about a third. The Romic method returns to the old Roman value of the vowels-i and e, for instance, sounding always as they do respectively in pique and pull. But Mr. Sweet's Romic requires at least 130 symbols. Mr. Pitman's system adopts about forty letters, and its efficiency and simplicity may be gathered from the fact that by its means some poor Glasgow children were taught in six hours to read the Sermon on the Mount.

The fear which is entertained by some, that the etymology of words will be obscured by the introduction of phonetic spelling, is groundless. One of the highest English authorities on this subject, Dr. Latham, says, "All objections to change [in spelling] on the matter of theoretical propriety, are as worthless as they ever could be thought to be;" and the late learned Chevalier Bunsen asserts that phonetic spelling is " comparative philology combined with universal ethnology," that the introduction of a phonetic alphabet is the "generally-felt desideratum of the age,' and that "the theory of etymology is inseparable from that of phonology." Max Müller observes, "I feel convinced of the truth and reasonableness of the principles on which phonetic spelling rests, and as the innate regard for truth and reason, however dormant or timid at times, has always proved irresistible in the end, enabling men to part with all they hold most dear and sacred, whether corn laws, or Stuart dynasties, or papal legates, or heathen idols, I doubt not that the effete and corrupt orthography will follow in their train. Nations have before now changed their numerical figures, their letters, their chronology, their weights and measures; and though Mr. Pitman may not live to see the results of his persevering and disinterested exertions, it requires no prophetic power to perceive that what at present is pooh-poohed by the many, will make its way in the end,

unless met by arguments stronger than those hitherto levelled at the Fonetik Nuz. One argument which might be supposed to weigh with the student of language, namely, the obscuration of the etymological structure of words, I cannot consider very formidable. The pronunciation of languages changes according to fixed laws; the spelling is changed in the most arbitrary manner, so that if our spelling followed the pronunciation of words, it would in reality be a greater help to the critical student of language than the present uncertain and unscientific mode of writing."

But it is not merely the inconsistency of English orthography of which we have to complain. The characters employed in ordinary writing are too lengthy and complicated to allow of their being written with expedition. A system of writing is required that shall bring the operations of the mind and of the hand into close correspondence, and, by making writing as easy and as rapid as speech, shall relieve the penman from the drudgery inseparable from the use of the present system. In allusion to this great want of the present age, it was remarked in the Introduction to the fifth edition of " Phonography," "There has hitherto existed among all nations the greatest disparity, in point of facility and dispatch, between speaking and writing: the former has always been comparatively rapid, easy, and delightful; the latter tedious, cumbrous, and wearisome. It is most strange that we, who excel our progenitors so far in science, literature, and commerce, should continue to use the mode of writing which they have handed down to us (with but very slight changes in the forms of the letters), though, by its complexity, it obliges the readiest hand to spend at least six hours in writing what can be spoken in one." nography supplies this great want by presenting a system of alphabetic writing, capable of being written with the speed of the most rapid distinct articulation, and of being read with the certainty and ease of ordinary longhand. This perfect legibility is not possessed by any of the common systems of shorthand writing, which, being based upon the Roman alphabet, necessarily partake of its inconsistencies and deficiencies. It is well known that manuscripts written in accordance with other systems of shorthand, can seldom be read by more than one or two persons besides the writer, and after a short time, usually become undecipherable to the writer himself. On the other hand, phonography, which has for many years been used by thousands of persons in letter-writing, is found to be even more legible than ordinary longhand.

Pho

By phonography, as adapted to reporting in a work entitled "The Phonographic Reporter," the most fluent speaker may be taken down, absolutely word for word, and the reporter's notes may be set up in type by any phonographic compositor who can read the reporting style; or if the reporter reads over his notes, and inserts a few vowels, his manuscript may then be read, with the facility of ordinary writing, by any one who has learned the system. Verbatim reports of speeches have been set up by the compositors of the Bath Journal, Norfolk News, New York Tribune, and other English and American newspapers, without having been transcribed into longhand. As it is calculated that six hours are required to transcribe for the press what occupied one hour in delivery, this new system of reporting, while it is incomparably more accurate than the old systems, has the additional advantage of saving five hours out of every six at present devoted to preparing the report for the press.

The system of shorthand writing here presented is the result of innumerable stenographic experiments, extending over a period of lengthened duration. These experiments were undertaken in order to ascertain the signs best adapted for the expression of the acknowledged sounds of the language. The great practice which the system has received, and is still receiving, from the many thousands who constantly use it, not merely for reporting but for the various purposes of every-day life, such as writing letters, making notes and extracts, keeping accounts, composition, etc., and the great liberality with which these have communicated their suggestions to the author, have enabled him to produce a work far exceeding in completeness, beauty, and utility, anything he could have hoped for at its first publication; and he believes that as no other system of shorthand has had such great advantages, or is based upon so just and philosophical a view of the elements of spoken language, so no other has attained the same degree of perfection, or possesses the same legibility, combined with adaptability to rapid execution.

Age.

:

Grâce Grah-s Favour.

Âge Ah-zh This vowel is sometimes under a grave accent, thus-à, là, voilà; but its sound is not materially affected thereby.

E, e.--Name, ay; sound, like the letters ay in the English word day.

It is used more than any other letter, namely-in five different ways; and hence it has five different names, viz. :—

e silent, e mute or unaccented, é acute, è grave, & circumflex. E, e, SILENT.-When final, and in the middle of words, between two consonants, e is silent, as in the following words :Abaque A-bak Abacus Contenance Cont'nans Attitude; also between J or G and a or o, as in Jean, Georges.

E, e, UNACCENTED.-Name, uh; has two sounds, 1st, that of e in her, when final of monosyllables, as in le, de, me; when at the end of the first syllable, as in mena, frelata, etc.; and in the middle of words when following l or r preceded by another consonant as in autrement, horriblement, etc.; 2nd, that of ay in day, before a double consonant, also before c, f, l, p, r, s, æ, and before mn, mv, and m final, as in: terre, pelle, avec, nef, fer, extase, indemne, décemvir, harem, etc.

É, é, ACUTE.-Name, eh; sound, like the English word eh. Examples:

Arrivé Ar-eev-eh Arrived. I Vérité Veh-ree-teh Truth.

Zero.

EXAMPLES OF THE FULL SOUND UNACCENTED: Mot Mo Word. Zéro Zeh-ro U, u.-Name, U, u; sound, nearly like the letter u in the English word brunette.

The sound of this vowel is peculiar, and there is no sound in the English language which exactly corresponds to it. The nearest approach to it is the sound of u in the word brunette. EXAMPLES:

But

Bu

Aim.

Tribu

Tree-bu

Tribe.

Ô, û, CIRCUMFLEX.-U, u; sound, nearly like the letter u in the English word brunette. Examples: Bûche Bush Log of wood. I Flûte This letter is silent when following q, except in a few words of Latin origin; e.g. quart pronounced as if spelt car.

Flute Flute.

English word bee.
Y, y.-Name, EE, ee; sound, like the letters ee in the

This letter is also an adverb meaning there, and a pronoun. When y stands alone, and thus becomes a word, its pronunciation is invariably like that of the letters ce in the English word bee, viz. :—Il y a, prouounced eel e a.

Seess-taim

:

Y is also pronounced like the letters ee in the English word bee, when it begins or ends a word; and also when it occurs in the body of a word, after a consonant, namely:Système System. Whenever y is found in the body of a word between two vowels, it has the sound of two French i's, viz. :Moyen should be pronounced as if printed thus: moiien; divided and pronounced in two syllables, namely, moi-ien.

NAME AND SOUND OF THE CONSONANTS.

B, b.-In any position within a word, this letter has the sound of the English letter b.

Ab-eos

When doubled within a word, only one b is sounded, viz. :— Abbesse Abboss. At the end of proper names b is always sounded. In these two words, aplomb and plomb, the b is silent, and the next two preceding letters in each word, namely, om, take the nasal sound of on.

C, c.-This letter has two entirely distinct sounds, namely,

The short sound, as in cob, is the most common one. has a broad and prolonged sound, as in cord, when followed by an r, thus-castor, encore, etc. The full sound, as in coat, is always given to the o when it has a circumflex accent over it. It is also full when final, as in coco, lolo, etc., and when followed by a mute consonant, as in mot, dos, etc.

EXAMPLES OF THE SHORT SOUND:
Bloc Blok Block. | Gobelet Go-blay

EXAMPLES OF THE BROAD, PROLONGED SOUND:
Castor Kas-tor Beaver.
Essor Es-sor

Cup.

Flight.

D, d. This letter generally has the sound of the letter d in the English word deed. It is usually silent when final, except in proper names.

The principal exception to the above rule is when d is final just before a word beginning with a vowel or an h mute. In such a case the d has the sound of the letter t in the English word, as if it were its first letter, as will be seen in the two word top; and in pronunciation is joined with the following examples which follow, viz. :—

Un grand acteur, (as if printed) Un gran tacteur.

In another instance, d has also the sound of t, viz., at the end of the third person singular of the indicative mood of verbs of the fourth conjugation, when followed by the pronouns il, elle, or on. In these cases the d has the sound of the English t, and is joined to the following word in pronunciation, as if it were that word's first letter:

Entend-il? (as if printed) Enten-til?

SECTION IV.-THE ARTICLE USED PARTITIVELY. 1. The article, contracted with the preposition de, according to Rules 1 and 2 of Section III., is placed in French before

which these evils would be removed, as highly desirable, but it has generally been thought to be unattainable. The truth which Shakespeare has embodied in the well-known lines

"There's a Divinity that shapes our ends,
Rough-hew them how we will,”

should ever inspire men with energy and perseverance to do something, however small, to rectify error, and replace evil by good. That which few had courage even to hope for, has been realised through the apparently unimportant circumstance of the publication, in 1837, of a new system of shorthand, based on an analysis of the English spoken language. The author of this system of Phonography had originally no intention to disturb the established orthography of the language, and in the third edition of his work, published in 1840, he observes, "It is, of course, Utopian to hope to change the printed medium of intercourse of the millions who speak the English language; but it is not extravagant or hopeless to attempt to find a substitute for the complicated system of writing which we at present employ." In about a year after this opinion was published, the success of phonetic shorthand writing led many who employed the system to ask why the principle of phonetic spelling, so advantageous in writing, should not be applied to printing. | The blessings that would follow the introduction of a natural system of spelling, and the evils of the current orthography, then began to appear in their true light; and after many attempts to construct a phonetic printing alphabet, with corresponding forms for longhand writing, phonetic printing commenced in January, 1844, in the Phonotypic Journal. We are encouraged to hope, from what has already been effected in the production and dissemination of books printed phonetically, that, in the course of time, the current orthography will give place to a system in which the phonetic idea will be uniformly respected. Several attempts to construct and bring into use a phonetic alphabet have been made at different times, by men eminent in literature; but these attempts were characterised by extreme inattention to details, and society had not in any degree been prepared for the change. The cause of orthographic reform was pioneered by Sir John Cheke in 1540, by Bishop Wilkins in 1668, and by Dr. Franklin in 1768. In our day there are two notable phonetic systems besides Pitman's-one termed the Glossic, devised by Mr. Ellis, the other termed the Romic, devised by Mr. Sweet. It would be almost useless to attempt here any explanation of these comparatively experimental systems. Suffice it to say, that the Glossic is simply a compromise with existing forms of spelling, by which a certain proportion of anomalies is dispensed with, and the labour of teaching orthography is reduced by about a third. The Romic method returns to the old Roman value of the vowels-i and e, for instance, sounding always as they do respectively in pique and pull. But Mr. Sweet's Romic requires at least 130 symbols. Mr. Pitman's system adopts about forty letters, and its efficiency and simplicity may be gathered from the fact that by its means some poor Glasgow children were taught in six hours to read the Sermon on the Mount.

The fear which is entertained by some, that the etymology of words will be obscured by the introduction of phonetic spelling, is groundless. One of the highest English authorities on this subject, Dr. Latham, says, "All objections to change [in spelling] on the matter of theoretical propriety, are as worthless as they ever could be thought to be;" and the late learned Chevalier Bunsen asserts that phonetic spelling is "comparative philology combined with universal ethnology," that the introduction of a phonetic alphabet is the "generally-felt desideratum of the age," and that "the theory of etymology is inseparable from that of phonology." Max Müller observes, "I feel convinced of the truth and reasonableness of the principles on which phonetic spelling rests, and as the innate regard for truth and reason, however dormant or timid at times, has always proved irresistible in the end, enabling men to part with all they hold most dear and sacred, whether corn laws, or Stuart dynasties, or papal legates, or heathen idols, I doubt not that the effete and corrupt orthography will follow in their train. Nations have before now changed their numerical figures, their letters, their chronology, their weights and measures; and though Mr. Pitman may not live to see the results of his persevering and disinterested exertions, it requires no prophetic power to perceive that what at present is pooh-poohed by the many, will make its way in the end,

1

unless met by arguments stronger than those hitherto levelled at the Fonetik Nuz. One argument which might be supposed to weigh with the student of language, namely, the obscuration of the etymological structure of words, I cannot consider very formidable. The pronunciation of languages changes according to fixed laws; the spelling is changed in the most arbitrary manner, so that if our spelling followed the pronunciation of words, it would in reality be a greater help to the critical student of language than the present uncertain and unscientific mode of writing."

But it is not merely the inconsistency of English orthography of which we have to complain. The characters employed in ordinary writing are too lengthy and complicated to allow of their being written with expedition. A system of writing is required that shall bring the operations of the mind and of the hand into close correspondence, and, by making writing as easy and as rapid as speech, shall relieve the penman from the drudgery inseparable from the use of the present system. In allusion to this great want of the present age, it was remarked in the Introduction to the fifth edition of " Phonography," "There has hitherto existed among all nations the greatest disparity, in point of facility and dispatch, between speaking and writing: the former has always been comparatively rapid, easy, and delightful; the latter tedious, cumbrous, and wearisome. It is most strange that we, who excel our progenitors so far in science, literature, and commerce, should continue to use the mode of writing which they have handed down to us (with but very slight changes in the forms of the letters), though, by its complexity, it obliges the readiest hand to spend at least six hours in writing what can be spoken in one." Phonography supplies this great want by presenting a system of alphabetic writing, capable of being written with the speed of the most rapid distinct articulation, and of being read with the certainty and ease of ordinary longhand. This perfect legibility is not possessed by any of the common systems of shorthand writing, which, being based upon the Roman alphabet, necessarily partake of its inconsistencies and deficiencies. It is well known that manuscripts written in accordance with other systems of shorthand, can seldom be read by more than one or two persons besides the writer, and after a short time, usually become undecipherable to the writer himself. On the other hand, phonography, which has for many years been used by thousands of persons in letter-writing, is found to be even more legible than ordinary longhand.

By phonography, as adapted to reporting in a work entitled The Phonographic Reporter," the most fluent speaker may be taken down, absolutely word for word, and the reporter's notes may be set up in type by any phonographic compositor who can read the reporting style; or if the reporter reads over his notes, and inserts a few vowels, his manuscript may then be read, with the facility of ordinary writing, by any one who has learned the system. Verbatim reports of speeches have been set up by the compositors of the Bath Journal, Norfolk News, New York Tribune, and other English and American newspapers, without having been transcribed into longhand. As it is calculated that six hours are required to transcribe for the press what occupied one hour in delivery, this new system of reporting, while it is incomparably more accurate than the old systems, has the additional advantage of saving five hours out of every six at present devoted to preparing the report for the press.

The system of shorthand writing here presented is the result of innumerable stenographic experiments, extending over a period of lengthened duration. These experiments were undertaken in order to ascertain the signs best adapted for the expression of the acknowledged sounds of the language. The great practice which the system has received, and is still receiving, from the many thousands who constantly use it, not merely for reporting but for the various purposes of every-day life, such as writing letters, making notes and extracts, keeping accounts, composition, etc., and the great liberality with which these have communicated their suggestions to the author, have enabled him to produce a work far exceeding in completeness, beauty, and utility, anything he could have hoped for at its first publication; and he believes that as no other system of shorthand has had such great advantages, or is based upon so just and philosophical a view of the elements of spoken language, so no other has attained the same degree of perfection, or possesses the same legibility, combined with adaptability to rapid execution.