attention was sometimes so alert, as to induce him to correct himself, as if he had made a mistake. Frequently too, what appeared to them the oddity of the sounds excited laughter. His audience soon began to suspect, that these frequent mistakes could not be the effect of accident; and on some of his friends communicating their suspicions to the lecturer, he frankly acknowledged that he had really some change in contemplation; though it was not yet sufficiently matured for the public. They were eager for an explicit communication, which he promised; only requesting them to suspend their final decision, till their ears had become accustomed in some degree to the new sounds. He now proceeded to lecture in his own college upon Homer's Odyssey; using the new pronunciation without restraint. Cheke did the same in his college; and in a short time, the proposed improvement appeared so reasonable to the more learned and judicious part of the university, that it was eagerly adopted; and the study of the Greek became daily an object of greater attention and of more ardent pursuit.

The catholics, however, who always hated the very name of innovation, were greatly

1

disturbed about this new way of pronouncing Greek, and opposed its introduction with obstinate perverseness. But unable to prevail, they complained to Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, and chancellor of the university, who, in the true spirit of popery, issued an edict, dated 14th May 1542, prohibiting all persons to use the new method, under the following penalties: If the offender were a regent, he was to be expelled the senate; if he stood for a degree, he was not to be admitted to it; if a scholar, he was to lose his scholarship; and the younger students were to be privately chastised.

.

On the appearance of this edict, Cheke wrote a letter to this haughty and overbearing prelate, in which he contended, that the true sounds of the letters had been changed in the last barbarous ages, and that it was therefore better to mend that barbarity than to follow it. For authority, he appealed to Erasmus, (who had written a book on the true pronunciation of the Latin and Greek) and also to other learned men. To this representation, the bishop replied, that the sound of letters was more likely to be changed by the learned than the unlearned; "the learned being wont to have

so much regard to euphony, and the gracefulness of the sound of words." Cheke further objected, that by pronouncing the diphthong, for example, as an (as was commonly done) there was no distinction between Λοιμος and Λιμος. But it was change which the chancellor regarded as dangerous, and he rejoined with warmth-" utere moribus antiquis verbis vero præsentibus, et multo magis sonis." Sir John still urged his love of truth, as his motive for the innovation; but the prelate still more inflamed replied-"Quid non mortalia pectora cogit veri quærendi fames ?”—Truth, however, at length prevailed over prelatical tyranny; and the new method was received in the universities and throughout the kingdom.

This controversy was conducted between Gardiner and Cheke in seven Latin epistles; of which the originals were left in the hands of Cælius Secundus Curio, a learned man of Basil, by Cheke himself, as he passed through that place in his journey to Italy, in the be ginning of queen Mary's reign. From these originals, they were published by Curio, in 1555, 8vo, without the knowledge of Cheke, under the following title-Johannis Cheke

Angli de pronunciatione Græca potissimum lingua, disputationes cum Stephano Wintoniensi episcopo, septem contrariis Epistolis comprehensq, magnâ quâdam et elegantiâ et eruditione referta.

To prevent incorrectness of pronunciation in the Latin language, arising from a violation of quantity, he proposed, that the Greek w should be substituted for the long vowel o, as in uxorem, liberws; that the long i should be written with two points over it, as in divinitus; and that the long e, and particularly the diphthong, which had been commonly written as the ordinary e, should have a comma after it, as in le,tor.

In the changes he was desirous of introducing into the English orthography, he was less successful, and perhaps less rational. 1. He proposed that the final e, when not sounded, should be abolished: Thus he would write excus, giv, deceiv, prais, commun; and when sounded, that it should be written a double e, as in necessitee. 2. That when the letter a was sounded long, it should be written a double a, to distinguish it from a short, as in maad, straat, daar. 3. That where the letter i was

sounded long, it should be written double i,

T

as in desir, liif. 4. That the letter y should be thrown entirely out of the alphabet, as useless, and its place supplied with i, as in mi, sai, awai. 5. That u long should be written with a stroke over it, as in præsum. 6. That the rest of the long vowels should be written with double letters, as weer, theer, (and sometimes thear) noo, noon, adoo, thoos, loov, in order to avoid an e at the end. 7. That letters without sound should be thrown out; as in the words, frutes, wold, faut, dout, again for against, hole, meen for mean. 8. And that the orthography of some words should be changed merely to improve the expressiveness of the sounds; as in gud, britil, praisabil, &c. This scheme of orthographical innovation was found impracticable. It was too violent a change upon established habits in the language, to meet with a general reception. Nor, had it been practicable, would it have been at all desirable. The books formerly printed would have been rendered in a short time, alınost unintelligible, and thus the most perplexing confusion would have prevailed. Besides, the etymologist, if his labours deserve not to be regarded as wholly eontemptible, would have often found himself entangled in