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 beginning 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 Græcæ potissimum lingua, disputationes cum Stephano Wintoniensi episcopo, septem contrariis Epistolis comprehensæ, 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 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 introdu cing 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, práis, 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,

as in desiir, 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, almost unintelligible, and thus the most perplexing confusion would have prevailed. Besides, the etymologist, if his labours deserve not to be regarded as wholly contemptible, would have often found himself entangled in

an inexplicable labyrinth in his search after the original meanings of words.

A more promising attempt to improve the English language was, his resolution to admit no terms into his diction, which had not an English, or rather a Saxon original. But in respect of this scheme, it might be observed, that the purity of our language had been too deeply corrupted by the admixture of exotic terms and phrases in his time, to admit its being carried into complete effect. Yet, from his disapprobation of the foreign terms employed in the existing translations of the scriptures, he resolved on the Herculean labour of a new version; and actually proceeded through St. Matthew's Gospel, and the beginning of St. Luke's. In the short specimen which I shall give from this version, it will be seen, however, with what inconsiderable success he reduced his principles to practice. In the course of three or four short verses, the learned reader will readily detect some half a dozen words derived from the Latin or Greek.

Matth. i. ver. 18.-After his mother Mari was ensured to Joseph, before thei weer cupled together,

she was preived to be with child; and it was indeed by the Holi Ghoost. 19. But Joseph her husband, being a just man, and loth to use extremitie toward her, entended privili to divorse himself from her. 20. And being in this mind, lo the angel of the Lord appeired by dream, &c.

Chap. ii. ver. 16. Then Herod seeing that he was plaid withal by the wise-heards, &c.

In this translation he used such words as the following: desiirful, ungrevous, tollers, for publicans, &c. &c.

The points of view, in which perhaps we are most indebted to Sir John Cheke for the improvement of our language, are the following. He recommended and practised a more minute attention to the meaning of words and phrases, and adopted a more skilful arrangement of them in composition. Before him, the sentences were long, and too frequently involved. He recommended and used short sentences; and thus he has the merit of introducing greater precision of language, more perspicuity and force of stile.

In the arrangement and flow of words, there is often a great similarity between the English language and the Greek. Sir John was accus