knowledge. I need not say that in all those cases where the earlier spelling revealed the secret of the word, told its history, which the later defaces or conceals, the change has been injurious, and is to be regretted; while at the same time, where it has thoroughly established itself, there is nothing to do but to acquiesce in it: it would be absurd to seek to undo it. Thus when 'grocer' was spelt 'grosser,' it was comparatively easy to see that he first had his name because he sold his wares not by retail, but in the gross. 'Coxcomb' tells us nothing now; but it did when spelt, as it used to be, 'cockscomb,' the comb of a cock being a sort of ensign or token which the fool was accustomed to wear. How many now understand 'woodbine'? but who could have helped understanding 'woodbind'?

'Pigmy' used formerly to be spelt 'pygmy,' and so long as it was so, no Greek scholar could see the word, but at once he knew that by it were indicated manikins whose measure in height was no greater than that of a man's arm from the elbow to the closed fist. Now he may know this in other ways; but the word itself, so long as he assumes it to be rightly spelt, tells him nothing. Or again, the old spelling, 'diamant,' was preferable to the modern, diamond.' It was preferable, because it told more of the quarter from whence the word had reached us. 'Diamant' and 'adamant' are in fact only two different appropriations of one and the same Greek, which afterwards became a Latin, word. The meaning of 'adamant' is, as you know, properly the untameable, and it was a name given at first to

'COUSIN,' 'COZEN.'

185

the highest tempered steel; but afterwards transferred* to the most precious among all the precious stones, as that which surpassed in hardness every thing besides.

Neither are new spellings to be praised, which separate a word in appearance from other words with which it is really connected; which, for those who are not thoroughly acquainted with the subject, tend to break up families of words into separate groups. Thus when 'jaw' was spelt 'chaw,' no one could miss its connexion with the verb 'to chew.' Now probably ninety-nine out of a hundred who use both words, are entirely unaware of any relationship between them.

It is the same with 'cousin' (consanguineus), and 'to cozen' or to deceive. I will not say which of these words should conform itself to the spelling of the other. There was great irregularity in the spelling of both from the first; yet for all this, it was then better than now, when a permanent distinction has established itself between them, keeping out of sight that 'to cozen' is in all likelihood to deceive under show of kindred and affinity; which if it be so, Shakespeare's words,

* First so used by Theophrastus in Greek, and by Pliny in Latin. -The real identity of the two words explains Milton's use of 'diamond,' Paradise Lost, 7; and in that sublime passage in his Apology for Smectymnuus: "Then zeal, whose substance is etherial, arming in complete diamond.”—Diez, (Wörterbuch d. Roman. Sprachen, p. 123), supposes that it was under a certain influence of 'diafano,' the translucent, that ' adamante' in Italian, from whence we have derived the word, was changed into 'diamante.'

"Cousins indeed, and by their uncle cozened
Of comfort,"

will be found to contain not a pun, but an etymology. The real relation between 'bliss' and 'to bless' is in like manner at present obscured.

The omission of a letter, or the addition of a letter, may each effectually do its work in concealing the true character and origin of a word. Thus the omission of a letter. When the first syllable of 'bran-new,' was spelt 'brand' with a final 'd,' 'brand-new,' how vigorous an image did the word contain. The 'brand' is the fire, and 'brand-new' is that which is fresh and bright, as being newly come from the forge and fire. It was equivalent to 'fire-new' (Shakespeare), while as now spelt, the word conveys to us no image at all.

Again, you have the word 'scrip'—as a 'scrip' of paper, government 'scrip.' Is this the same word with the Saxon 'scrip,' a wallet, having in some strange manner obtained these meanings so different and so remote? Have we here two wholly different words, though spelt alike (homonyms)? or only two different applications of one and the same word? We have only to note how the first of these 'scrips' used to be written, namely with a final 't,' not scrip but 'script,' and we are at once able to answer the question. This 'scrip' is a Latin, as the other is an Anglo-Saxon, word, and meant at first simply a written (scripta) piece of paper-a circumstance which since the omission of the final 't' may easily escape our knowledge. 'Afraid' was spelt

* Richard III., iv. 4.

much better in old times with the double 'ff,' than with the single 'f' as now. It was then clear that it was not another form of 'afeared,' but wholly separate from it, the participle of the verb 'to affray,' 'affrayer,' or as it is now written, 'effrayer.'

In the cases hitherto adduced, it has been the omis sion of a letter which has disturbed and obscured the etymology. The intrusion of a letter sometimes does the same. Thus in the early editions of Milton, and in all writers of his time you would find 'scent,' an odor, spelt 'sent.' It was better so; there is no other noun substantive 'sent,' with which it is in danger of being confounded; while its relation with 'sentio,' with 'resent,'* 'dissent,' &c., is put out of sight by its novel spelling; the intrusive 'c' serves only to mislead.

Again, 'whole' in Wiclif's Bible, and indeed much later, occasionally as far down as Spenser, is spelt 'hole,' without the 'w' at the beginning. There may be the advantage in the present orthography of at once distinguishing the word to the eye from any other word; but at the same time the initial 'w' now prefixed hides its relation to the verb 'to heal,' with which it is more closely allied. The 'whole' man is he whose hurt is 'healed' or covered (we say of the convalescent that he 'recovers'), the word being closely allied to

* How close this relationship was once, not merely in respect of etymology, but also of significance, a passage like this will prove : "Perchance, as vultures are said to smell the earthiness of a dying corpse; so this bird of prey [the evil spirit which personated Samuel, 1 Sam. xxviii. 14] resented a worse than earthly savor in the soul of Saul, as evidence of his death at hand." (Fuller, The Profane State, b. 5. c. 4.)

'hale' (integer), from which also by its modern spelling it is divided. 'Wholesome' has naturally followed the fortunes of 'whole'; it was spelt 'holsome' once.

'Island' is another word of which our present spelling is inferior to the old, inasmuch as it suggests a hybrid formation, as though the word were made up of the Latin 'insula,' and the Saxon 'land.' It is quite true that 'isle' is in relation with, and descent from, 'insula,' 'isola,' 'île;' and hence probably the misspelling of 'island.' This last however has nothing to do with 'insula,' being identical with the German 'eiland,' the Anglo-Saxon 'ealand,' and signifying the sea-land, or land girt round with the sea, just as 'insula': ''in salo.' And it is worthy of note that this spelling of 'island' with an 's' in the first syllable is quite modern. Thus in all the earlier versions of the Scriptures, including the authorized Version as at first set forth, it is 'iland'; and in proof that this is not accidental, it may be observed that while 'iland' has not the 's,' 'isle' has it, as at Rev. i. 9. 'Iland' indeed is the spelling which we meet with far down into the seventeenth century.

What has just been said of 'island' leads me naturally to observe that one of the most frequent causes of alteration in the spelling of a word is a wrongly assumed derivation. It is then sought to bring the word into harmony with, and to make it by its spelling suggest, this derivation, which has been erroneously thrust upon it. Here is a subject which, followed out as it deserves, would form no uninteresting nor yet uninstructive chapter in the history of language. I