to admit that many, if not
all, of the quite limited number of changes put forward in the later
editions of the Dictionary are, in themselves considered, unquestionable
improvements, and that, if adopted by the whole English-writing public
on both sides of the water, or even in this country alone, would redeem
our common language from some of the gross anomalies and grievous
confusion which now make it a monster among the graphic systems of the
world, and a stumbling-block and stone of offence to all who undertake
to learn it. Furthermore, it must be conceded that almost all our
lexicographers have been nearly or quite as ready as Dr. Webster to
attempt improvements in orthography, though they may have shown more
discretion than he. It is not generally known, we suspect, but it is
none the less a fact, that Johnson, Todd, Perry, Smart, Worcester, and
various other eminent orthographers, have all deviated more or less from
actual usage, in order to carry out some "principle" or "analogy" of the
language, or to give sanction and authority to some individual fancy of
their own. So much may be said in defence of Dr. Webster against the
ignorant vituperation with which he has often been assailed. But, on the
other hand, he is fairly open to the charge of having violated his own
canons in repeated instances. To take a single case, why should he not
have spelt _until_ with two _l_s, instead of one,--as he does "distill,"
"fulfill," etc.,--when it was so desirable to complete an analogy, and
when he had for it the warrant of a very common, if not the most
reputable, usage? Again, it seems to us, that, if our orthography is to
be reformed at all, it should be reformed not indifferently, but
altogether; for it is, beyond controversy, atrociously bad, poorly
fulfilling, as Professor Hadley justly remarks, (p. xxviii.,) its
original and proper office of indicating pronunciation, while it no
better fufils the improper office, which some would assert for it, of a
guide to etymology. Emendations on the here-a-little-there-a-little
plan, while they do no harm, do little good. They are but topical
remedies, which cannot restore the pristine vigor of a ruined
constitution. What we need is a reform as thorough-going as that which
has been effected in the Spanish language. Shall we ever have it? or
will the irrational conservatism of the educated classes, in all time to
come, prevent a consummation so desirable, and so desiderated by the
ph