assign several sounds to one sign. Thus we express four sounds with the letter a, as in at, fame, far, all, and we misuse the other vowels in a similar manner. It would create considerable confusion in society if one person were called indiscriminately by four names, and if many persons in the same household bore the same name. Suppose that we have the name sound of e to write. We express it variously, thus: Cæsar, seal, see, seize, people, key, ravine, field, foetus, quay. Take, again, the name sound of u, which is found in beauty, feudal, feud, few, ewe, lieu, new, due, suit, yew, youth, yule. If we try i in the same way we have spite, aisle, height, eying, eye, tie, guide, buy, by, aye. We find the name sound of o written thus: note, hautboy, beau, yeoman, sew, oak, foe, brooch, soul, mow, owe. Of course, as we have asserted, we cannot tell how to write words in which these sounds occur, without referring to a dictionary; unless, indeed, we have previously committed them to memory, and in view of the confusion they present we may well ask, "What is the use of the Alphabet?" It is apparent that the English alphabet has lost its original use, and is now a means rather of hiding sounds than of expressing them. As regards the divergence between the spoken and written forms, English stands somewhere near the Celtic or the Chinese, and it behooves us to take some steps in the direction of the restoration of the proper relations between our letters and sounds. The language contains in itself all the elements required by the most thorough spirit of reform. All that is needed is that we make up our minds to use every symbol with a single sound, and to put upon paper by their means the true words, and not the confused and absurd forms to which custom has made us used. But no sooner do we state this proposition than the sentimentalist rushes to arms in behalf of the word-forms which he tells us are hallowed by time and rendered sacred. He forgets to look at the letters of his grandfather, where he would find much spelling which he would think barbarous. He does not reflect that the English classics were not first printed in the orthographic dress in which they now present themselves to us. He may not know that our version of the Bible contained in its earlier editions a great variety of spelling-the same words being often printed differently on a single page, if not, indeed, on the same line. Were he to read Chaucer and Wiclif he would find startling variations in spelling, and would learn that until Dr. Johnson made his dictionary the author-class cared comparatively little for orthographic consistency. If the conservative sentimentalist, with whom we confess to have a warm sympathy, at last gives his consent to our using the alphabet for the purpose that it was made to subserve, we find our progress obstructed by the small philologist. He has read "Trench on Words " perhaps, and knowing no more of the subject of historic etymology than that book can teach, he feels it his duty to protest in the name of scholarship against any change in a spelling which he avers contains a record of the pedigree of living words. As Temple Bar with its venerated associations choked the stream of travel in the thoroughfare of the Metropolis, so the small philologist thrusts his spectral obstacle in the way of orthographic reform. He does not know that the philological giants of the day scowl at such an objection; that the greatest of them are the warmest advocates of a reform, saying with Whitney that "every theoretical and practical consideration makes in its favor," and with Max Muller, that "etymological spelling would play greater havoc in English than phonetic spelling." The truth is, that there is no argument against phonetic spelling, which, if carried to its legitimate conclusions, would not also make against the present orthography. If any principle were involved this would not be so. Dr. Johnson tells us that this department was in a condition of anarchy when he began to make his dictionary. This state of affairs had resulted from the carelessness of writers, who permitted compositors in the printing offices to spell for them; and they did it in the way that agreed best with their individual notions, or with the resources of the office. If any principle involving the relation of letters and sounds Professor March of Lafayette college, who is well-known as one of the foremost of American philologists says of this plan: "Two powerful reasons may be urged for a trial of this method. (1.) It can be easily read by every one who can read in the present spelling. (2.) It can be printed with common types. It may be further said, that it is in the line of the regular development of our language. It is the tendency everywhere in language for minorities to conform to majorities. The unusual modes of spelling would naturally, according to this law, give way to the most common mode, and this would ultimately be the only mode of denoting each sound. So that in adopting this system we should only be hastening the natural process by which cosmos comes out of chaos; and this our had guided these early spellers, the work of reform would be one of comparative simplicity. We might return to the old ways. But to return from the present confusion to a state of "absolute anarchy" is absurd. We cannot restore a historic spelling, simply because there is no historic period to which we can point and say, "Here English spelling was systematic and sensible." It was absurd five hundred years ago. It was chaotic after the conquest, and before that time the language as we use it did not exist. Since the last great accession of words, then, the alphabet has not been used in its legitimate work of expressing sounds. The etymological spelling is impossible; the historical scheme is no more practicable; and the present typographical or dictionary orthography is unreasonable. This shuts us up to some phonetic system, and the only scientific men say, is the true office of the question is, What shall it be? reformer." We have said that the language already contains all the elements needed for the most exact reform. Mr. Alexander J. Ellis, of England, who is acknowledged to be the most eminent and careful phonologist on either side of the ocean, shows that all the sounds of the language may be readily expressed by the present letters in the powers which they now most ordinarily have. The requisite additional signs are obtained by the use of a few diacritical marks and digraphs. A system formed in this way has the great advantage of being read with ease without previous study; and it has the merit of being a development of the language itself, and of not involving the addition of signs from other alphabets, or of letters that would appear odd and repulsive. The problem to be solved, is not "How shall we form an alphabet?" for it is agreed on all hands, as the American Philological Association puts it, that "the Roman alphabet is so widely and so firmly established in use among the leading civilized nations that it cannot be displaced." Our efforts then, should be to learn the true use of the alphabet we have, and then to apply it to that use in conformity to the genius of our language. When this has been done we shall no longer be worried by the irregu larities of orthography; foreigners nor natives, will have no right to ask "What is the use of the alphabet?" and the English language will take another stride towards becoming the universal speech of the world. Arthur Gilman. A SONG FROM A SIGH. The little bird sang in his sleep, they said: So sings the heart when a dream beguiles And care departs and the dreamer smiles, Samuel W. Duffield. EDITOR'S TABLE. SUNDAY READING. FROM nearly all of the religious newspapers SUNDAY AFTERNOON has received the kindest treatment. No heartier words of praise could have been desired by us than those which have been spoken by journals of every variety of belief. The fact that this periodical might have appeared to some of them in the light of a possible rival has not abated the heartiness of the welcome with which they have greeted it. For these friendly words we are duly grateful. One or two journals, however, have qualified their commendations. The magazine ought to have a different name. It is good for other days, but not for Sunday. It ought to be laid by, with the other magazines, till Monday morning. But what would these editors have the people read on Sunday? Their newspapers, probably. Surely a paper which advertises itself as "a family religious journal," must be intended for Sunday reading. But there are not many of these papers by the side of which we are not ready to put SUNDAY AFTERNOON for a fair comparison of the amount of "religious" reading which they respectively contain. Of the one hundred and three articles and poems printed in the first volume of this magazine, fully threefourths were of a decidedly religious character; the rest were such articles as "The Germantown Relief Experiment," "The Ethics of Hospitality." "College Morals," The Truth about Barbara Fritchie," and "The Lake Dwellings of Switzerland," most of which either contained valuable information, or had a direct bearing upon the conduct of life. We have printed quite a number of stories; and we are not at all afraid of contradiction when we say that these stories are better Sunday reading than the average Sunday School novelette, and quite as good as the average story found in the pages of the religious weekly. Both of our serials have been of a religious character, and the same thing is true of three-fourths of all the stories we have printed. Compare with this showing the contents of any of the more conspicuous religious papers. One of the most respectable of these, representing one of the leading denominations, lies before us.. It is one of the three or four papers that have taken exception to SUNDAY AFTERNOON as not adapted to Sunday reading. What do we find in this journal? To begin with, thirteen out of the fifty-six columns are devoted to advertisements, among which various quack medicine-men display their nostrums. Four columns in reading matter type, and immediately following reading matter, are devoted to what purports to be an important and interesting lecture," and turns out, on examination, to be a disgusting advertisement of one of those medical humbugs by which ignorant people are being at once swindled and slaughtered. Is this the sort of reading to which the public are advised to devote their Sunday afternoons? Besides the advertisements, more or less questionable, that fill up nearly a quarter of the space in this religious newspaper, one or two columns are generally filled with reports of the markets, in which the Sunday reader can learn all that he needs to know about what is doing in print cloths, and how the flour trade is going, and what is the demand for codfish and petroleum, and what are the ruling rates of call loans, and what American gold and five-twenties are selling for. Of course the merchant or the broker may live who is so devout that he would never suffer his eye to rest for a moment on that column while he holds the paper in his hand of a Sunday afternoon; but the chances are, very decidedly, that business men will not skip this department; and we are not afraid to assert that the portion of the Sunday which, at the instigation of the religious newspaper, is devoted to this purpose, might as well be spent in reading a chapter of "Tom's Heathen," or Professor Sumner's Essay on "Money and Morals." Another full column of this newspaper is devoted to a well-conducted Agricultural Department, in which the Christian reader is taught how to kill the curculio, and how to pack butter, and what kind of manure is best for mangel wurzels, and how to keep his cows on fodder, with all the benefits which do either accompany or flow therefrom. Three or four columns more are given up to secular news, with comments upon it. Sometimes these matters are treated from a moral or religious point of view, as our readers know that they always are in SUNDAY AFTERNOON; generally, however, this department of the paper has very little in it to suggest to Sunday readers the existence of a kingdom of God in the world. Thus fully one-third of the space of this reli gious journal is set apart to matters that have no reference to religion, and 'no place in Sunday meditations. Throughout the other two-thirds of the paper, in editorials, stories, sketches, bits of news and science and travels, secularities have quite as large a place as they do in SUNDAY AFTERNOON. Ecclesiastical matters do, of course, have much more space allotted to them than we give them; but of reading that helps directly in increasing the knowlege of the Christian student, or in stimulating the earnestness of the Christian worker, we may safely claim that this magazine contains fully as large a proportion as does this newspaper which finds fault with it. It would seem, therefore, that the Scripture about the motes and the beams might be applied without much straining to this case. A careful examination of the complete contents of these captious journals does not lead to the conclusion that they are entitled to throw a great many stones at SUNDAY AFTERNOON. We wish however, to repeat, at the beginning of the second volume, what we said as clearly as we could in the opening of the first: "We do not promise that all the reading of SUNDAY AFTERNOON shall be technically religious reading. 'The Sabbath was made for man'; and whatever reading helps a man to a better manhood is good Sunday reading." We do not think we have fallen below this standard. Sunday reading does and must take a wider range in our time than it once took. It is beginning to be clearer than it once was that religion is not something fenced off from life, but that it is the element that ought to be infused through the whole of life. And Sunday is none too good a day to think about a good many questions that were once regarded as wholly secular. As Mr. Marsh said in our first number: "A good article on the tramp question would be as appropriate to Sunday thought, I am sure, as the story of the Good Samaritan." None of the scrupulous readers of this number will have any difficulty in accepting Professor Paine's article on "The Stepping-Stone of Bethphage" as good Sunday reading; but some of them will hesitate over Mr. Abbott's "From Platform to Prairie." Yet, to our thought Mr. Abbott's article is quite as appropriate to the day as Professor Paine's; for it points out to us one of the great questions that are pressing just now upon all in the cities who love their neighbors as themselves; and gives us a hint, at least, of a way in which suffering may be relieved, and a door of hope opened to some who are helpless and in want. For people who are not willing to have Sunday invaded by such thoughts as these SUNDAY AFTERNOON is not intended. But this class of people is not, happily, in these days so large that its opinions need to be consulted. The steady and warm approval with which our work has been received by the Christian public shows that we have not erred in our judgment of what is good Sunday reading. THE RELIGIOUS PRESS. THE religious newspapers of this country as compared with those of Great Britain are less dignified but more readable. American journalism is brisk, aggressive, enterprising; it seizes every scrap of passing news, and shoots the item as it flies; it affects raciness more than thoroughness of discussion and deals freely in controversy and repartee. Religious journalism in this country partakes of this vivacity. Our best religious weeklies contain much more that is entertaining and stimulating than the best English papers. The scholar may find in them less of profound and profitable discussion, but they do get read by the average citizen; and that is more than can be said of the typical English weekly. Another difference between the religious press of this country and that of England is in the greater prominence given here to the personality of the writers. The name of the editor is commonly hoisted at the head of the editorial columns. In the controversies that arise, this name is dragged before the public, and the personal faults of the editor, whether they have any bearing upon the dispute or not, are sure to get an airing. This is one of the most disreputable features of American journalism; and the religious press quite as much as the secular press is responsible for it. Newspapers ought to be editorially impersonal, and then much of this scandal would be avoided; but so long as men will set their names up as targets they are likely to be fired at. It is a silly piece of egotism, at best, for an editor to put his name every week at the top of his newspaper. The minister might as well go into his pulpit every Sunday and proclaim: "I, John Smith, by the grace of God pastor of this church, propose now and here to preach the gospel." Signed articles from contributors are not open to this objection. The minister may properly introduce to his congregation any preacher who occupies his pulpit, though he does not feel the need of introducing himself every week. The name of the writer assists the reader somewhat in estimating the utterances. Allowance is made for known peculiarities or prejudices of the writer, and for any coloring which statements of fact may in this manner have received. When you read an article treating of the conduct of the negroes of the South you wish to know whether it was was written by an ex-slaveholder or an ex-slave. Therefore, although the practice of running newspapers upon great names may have been overdone; although the exhibition of titles and notorieties as mere matters of merchandise may have been carried to a ridiculous excess, yet the affixing of contributors' names to their own papers is, on the whole, a desirable practice; and is not open to the objection that fairly lies against personal editorship. But if it is a mistake to publish the name of the editor or the names of his staff, it is sometimes worse than a mistake to announce as the editor the name of a man who is not the editor in any true meaning of the term; who writes almost nothing for the paper, and who has but little to do in shaping its character, but whose name is used simply as a bait to catch subscribers. That is a method of obtaining money under false pretenses; and the newspapers that resort to it generally and deservedly come to grief before many years. Most of the religious newspapers in this country are organs of the various denomininations. Denominational organs are subject to the same temptations that political organs are exposed to. There is a constant tendency to take narrow and partial views of truth. Those peculiar methods or dogmas for the propagation of which the denomination exists are sure to be exaggerated. Methodism, for example, has its excellences and its defects; but the readers of a Methodist paper are apt to hear all about the former and very little about the latter, while the weak points of the other denominations will be magnified to their view out of all proportion. All this is inseparable from denominationalism and from that human nature in which denominationalism takes its rise. It is not wholly bad in its practical results; for as there are few minds that are able to take comprehensive views of truth, the only way to get the whole truth told is for each of us to tell as clearly as he can that part of it which he sees. Still, it must be admitted that a little more comprehension on the part of the sectarian press-a little more readiness to see and recognize the truths that other Christians have found, and to rejoice in the work that they are doing, would be salutary. If the sectarian press, like the political party press, is in danger of becoming narrow, the undenominational journals, like the independent political journals, are in danger of becoming censorious. A newspaper that has nothing in particular to fight for is apt to find any number of things to fight against. Simple undenominationalism is not a good platform any more than simple unbelief is a good creed. It is liable to degenerate on the one side into mere goodygoody prattle about Christian union, or on the other into the Donnybrook school of journalism. An undenominational journal must stand for certain definite ideas, and work for certain definite results or else its existence will have no jus tification. Most of our religious papers, of all types, freely discuss social and political questions. This is just as it should be. We want these matters discussed from a religious point of view; and it is vastly better that religion should be made to cover all departments of our life than that it should be kept in a department by itself. That the religious press of this country has been a powerful help in educating the people, cannot be denied. Not only to our politics, but to literature and science it has contributed sentiment and stimulus; it carries every week to the homes of the people the best thoughts of good men on all the topics of the time; it stands almost always for the highest virtue and the truest charity. There is one taint upon its influence, and that is the questionable character of its business management. There are exceptions, of course; but a good many of our religious journals have queer ways of doing business. The moral standards of the average newspaper publisher are not the highest; and it is a pity that religious journalism should have suffered on this account a serious loss of respect in the minds of sound business men. A QUESTION OF EMPHASIS. THE text of this discourse may be found in The Watchman of May 23: "It is not a very weighty apology for any evil thing to point out something that is worse. A writer in SUNDAY AFTERNOON thinks it evident that there is a worse heresy' than the teaching of erroneous doctrine. No doubt of it; but the corruption of the Gospel is a very bad thing." It ought to be noted, to begin with, that no "apology" was offered, in the article referred to, for any "evil thing." It was pointed out that certain questionings of commonly received theories are abroad in the church; and it was neither affirmed nor denied that these questionings are "evil." But, admitting them to be evil, the point was made that other evils are prevalent in the church of a far worse character. The Watchman says that there is "no doubt of it." We are glad to have our judgment on that point confirmed by so competent an authority. And we are quite sure that the Watchman will, on second thought, admit that we were not less accurate in our second statement that the lesser evil receives far more attention from the defenders of the faith than the greater evil; that the spective doubts of a few devout and earnest Christian men are assailed with far greater vehemence than the rank infidelity and irreligion that are making a tremendous onset upon the very foundations of the faith. "It is not a very weighty apology for any evil thing," the Pharisees might have replied to Jesus, "to point out something that is worse. No doubt a beam in the eye is worse than a mote, but a mote is a very bad thing. Every one who has |