but a faint prospect of an effectual remedy for the 'evils,' as they were justly called, which prompted that recommendation; and, that 'the interest of letters' is yet destined to 'suffer no small detriment from the variety of grammars;' which, in truth, succeed each other with a rapidity that bids defiance to the talents and industry of those teachers, who endeavor to keep pace with them. For an instructer, (who, if he would bestow his labor to the most advantage, ought to have a knowledge of his elementary books, that may be termed mechanical,) scarcely has an opportunity of making himself thus familiarly acquainted with any one grammar, before he is compelled to throw away all his labor, and betake himself to the study of some new work. How many more we shall have in the next five and twenty years, it is impossible to foresee; but if that period should be as prolific as the last, and there is little hope that it will be less so, we shall very often see the existing materials wrought over again, sometimes according to old patterns, and sometimes according to new

Multa renascentur quæ jam cecidêre ; cadentque

Quæ nunc sunt in honore

Nor do we perceive any remedy for this 'evil,' unless the University, with the cooperation of the principal seminaries of learning in the country, shall, after careful deliberation, make a selection of some one grammar, and resolutely adhere to their choice. In this event, if they should not still approve of the work to which they originally gave currency, they might either fix upon some other among those which are already in use, or might make an improved one of their own; and, fortunately, they have in their Greek Department one of the most profound scholars of the country, who could easily perform that task in a manner, which would be honorable to the University and to the nation. Upon what principles the selection of an elementary work of this kind should be made, with the greatest advantage to the literature of a country circumstanced like our own, is happily not for us to decide; but, as we have given some attention to the subject, and have formed an opinion upon it, we may, before a decision is made by the competent authorities, venture to state some of the grounds of that opinion.

(To be concluded in our next.)

The Pronouncing Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments; the Proper Names of which, and numerous other Words, being accurately Accented in the Text, and divided into Syllables, as they ought to be pronounced according to the Orthoepy of John Walker, as contained in his Critical Pronouncing Dictionary, and Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek, Latin, and Scripture, Proper Names. By Israel Alger junr., A. M. Boston, 1825.

ANY one who has attended to the progress of improvement in schools and other seminaries in some parts of this country, must have observed the revolution which is taking place in pronunciation, and the opposition which this change has to encounter. From an utter neglect of this branch of common education, some instructers have passed to an earnest and anxious attention to it; and, instead of cavilling at Walker's rules of orthoepy, are exerting themselves to produce and perfect a pronunciation founded on his principles. Other teachers, however, entertain a different opinion as to the propriety of a strict assimilation of our orthoepy to that of Walker; and not a few object peremptorily to the introduction of his system at all.

A due attention to the subject would perhaps discover errors in the views and statements of those who hold to opposite extremes in this question. Both the admirers and the opponents of Walker, in this country, have misunderstood him in many things; and it is not surprising that this should be the case. There are two very sufficient reasons why that author's system should not be perfectly intelligible here in some of its minuter points. Few of our citizens have the opportunity of personally ascertaining the existing state of pronunciation in England. Now Walker's notation of orthoepy often turns on a mere nicety in the current manner of pronouncing. For though he has, in some things, his own peculiar views in which he is not followed by many of the most distinguished speakers, nor even by the British community at large; yet his leading object was to ascertain and exhibit the law of good custom.*

In some particulars of this kind, we, in this country, cannot understand him so easily; because they depend often on those minute and evanescent efforts of enunciation, which can be caught only by

The question as to the merits of Walker's orthoepy cannot be properly decided without adverting to the fact implied in the title page of his Dictionary. His work is a Critical' pronouncing dictionary: it was designed to afford room for private opinion and taste, and for the introduction of what seemed to be improvement, along with the necessary statement of the best fashion of the day. In some points of Walker's system, therefore, we are to recognise the suggestions of an individual, but in most, the usage and therefore the law of English pronunciation.

the ear; and which no ingenuity can render palpable to the eye, through the medium of the English alphabet, after all the aid which can be derived from numbering, and marking, and accenting every letter. Many ingenious reasons are given for following or for abandoning Walker in some cases of this sort. But the reasoners on both sides forget that they are disputing about what is not a subject of argumentation, but a question of fact and of custom.

To select an instance: Walker lays it down as a rule that the letter e in such words as term, mercy, &c. should not be pronounced in that coarse and careless manner which converts e into u and gives turm and murcy for the orthoepy of these words. The letter e in these and similar words, is accordingly marked in the Pronouncing Dictionary like the same letter in the words merit, very, &c; because the English language affords no better means of an ocular representation of the true sound. Teachers who follow Walker's book literally, fall very naturally, therefore, into the error of inculcating, in this instance, a pronunciation which characterises the Scotch, the Irish, the French, the Germans, and other nations, but not the English. The sound which Walker meant to recommend in this case, though it inclines comparatively to the latter, is not to be confounded with it any more than with the former. Yet, in public reading, in this country, it is commonly the one or the other of these that is adopted.

Another example is furnished in the vowel i in the words time, life, &c. Mr. Walker has, with his usual good taste, objected to that pronunciation of this letter which would make it seem to be a dipthong commencing with the broad sound of a. Some American instructers have therefore run to the opposite extreme of commencing the sound of this letter in a manner which produces the peculiar i of the Scotch and Irish; whilst others who regard such pronunciation as affected, leave their pupils to adopt the vulgarism against which Walker has protested.

ear.

Another obstacle to a perfect understanding of Walker, is the difficulty which we have just mentioned of contriving any method by which we may regulate the voice through the medium of the eye, whilst the natural channel of communication, in this case, is the The instance already given might serve for an illustration here; but we prefer selecting one which has excited an equal share of indignation among some of our critics, and perplexity among some of our teachers. We allude to the sound of ai and ay in syllables in which they constitute an oral dipthong. The orthoepy of the words fair, prayer, &c, is unavoidably so expressed as to produce, with those who follow strictly the guidance of the eye, an impression that these words are to be pronounced in a manner which would justly subject a person to the penalty of being thought

affected. Such precision in pronouncing is sometimes introduced, for the purpose of ridicule, on the stage; but this very circumstance serves to show that to pronounce with that labored affectation of accuracy or of extraordinary refinement, is to offend the good sense and the taste of society.

Unfortunately, some teachers in this country who have understood Walker as requiring that manner of pronouncing, and have felt disgusted with what was so offensive to their ear, are disposed to tolerate the obsolete pronunciation of these dipthongs, which is but a shade better than the antiquated vulgarisms of far and prár, (for fair and prayer,) sounds, which though they may be associated with the idea of rude grandeur, when they drop from the lips of the rugged woodsman of the southwest, can hardly be proposed for imitation in refined society or in school.

Walker's orthoepy, was founded on the usage of good society, and of esteemed public speakers; and that author would have shrunk from a literal copy of either of the above extremes. He would, in short, have given, (if asked to do it orally,) that chaste sound of these dipthongs which is current among well bred people on his side the Atlantic; but which no selection or arrangement of letters can convey exactly to the eye.

The author of the Pronouncing Bible has not, we are happy to observe, attempted any wide deviation from Walker. He has followed the orthoepy of that writer, and has left to the teacher the office of communicating the proper oral expression of what is merely laid before the eye in the most accurate way which circumstances will permit; but which can be perfectly acquired, through no other medium than the ear, or the living voice. In this arrangement Mr. Alger has, we believe, the sense of the community in his favor. To maintain a pure style of vernacular pronunciation in the United States, an approximation to a standard seems equally necessary and desirable. The partial and gradual mutations which are constantly taking place in the pronunciation of British society, we are too far off to acquire by any species of transmission sufficiently rapid and diffusive. We are left then to a choice between those local peculiarities which will accumulate everywhere into wide differences, (not to say uncouth and deplorable errors) and the partial if not full adoption of an acknowledged and permanent standard. That the latter course is the preferable one, needs no demonstration to persons of taste. When we reflect, however, on the multitude of minds and of tastes which are concerned in any national measure, it will not seem wonderful that, while the people of the United States are disposed, generally speaking, to adopt Walker's orthoepy, their adherence to it is not perfectly uniform. Due weight must be allowed to the difficulty arising from VOL. J.

39

such misconceptions as we have already mentioned, and from even the most rational attempts to effect alterations in what is everywhere held to be a criterion of good sense, and sometimes even of moral propriety, and where the apparent instability resulting from a change, is apt to seem absurd, if not contemptible.

We have indulged these wide views of this subject, from our conviction that the Pronouncing Bible is a work destined to effect an extensive improvement in its sphere. That its merits render it worthy of the career of usefulness for which it is designed, no one, we think, will doubt, who has perused it.

There is, as far as we know, no work with which this can be compared, except Brown's Testament-the first book of the kind, perhaps, in which any attempt was made to facilitate a correct style of scriptural reading in families and schools. The improvement in that work, however, extended no farther than to a selection of the most difficult words in every chapter, arranged over it, in the dictionary form. Mr. Alger's method is vastly superior: it extends to every word in which it would seem that a mispronunciation could possibly be made. This idea is, we think, a happy one; for many errors in common reading are those which the reader is accustomed to make in conversation, and which habit leads him to transfer to his style of reading. If, in these circumstances, his book affords him no guidance or correction but in the more difficult words, he is still liable to numberless inaccuracies which he has never suspected. The Pronouncing Bible will prove a radical cure of such evils. It hems the careless reader in on every side, and leaves him no opportunity of wandering off into error. This work will perhaps do more than has been effected by all the dictionaries heretofore published, to produce throughout the United States, a uniform and chaste pronunciation of the English language.

A brief but well constructed explanatory key renders the whole orthoepy perfectly intelligible. A preference in marking the pronunciation of words is very justly given to accents and marks over figures; the former being susceptible of a much more minute and satisfactory application.

We cannot close our remarks, without expressing our satisfaction with the accurate and neat style in which the work is executed. As far as regards this very desirable point, the editor and the publishers have truly succeeded in making their work worthy of the confidence and patronage of the public.' The labor undergone in this publication has been great; and we have no doubt that it will be amply repaid by an extensive adoption of the work in families and schools.