or independence to make our alphabet and its uses, look more like the work of what is called—­wise and transcendent humanity:  till the pardonable variety of pronunciation, and the true spelling by the vulgar, have satirized into reformation that pen-craft which keeps up the troubles of orthography for no other purpose, as one can divine, than to boast of a very questionable merit as a criterion of education.”—­Ib., p. 383.

OBS. 4.—­How far these views are compatible, the reader will judge.  And it is hoped he will excuse the length of the extracts, from a consideration of the fact, that a great master of the “pen-craft” here ridiculed, a noted stickler for needless Kays and Ues, now commonly rejected, while he boasts that his grammar, which he mostly copied from Murray’s, is teaching the old explanation of the alphabetic elements to “more than one hundred thousand children and youth,” is also vending under his own name an abstract of the new scheme of “tonicks, subtonicks, and atonicks;” and, in one breath, bestowing superlative praise on both, in order, as it would seem, to monopolize all inconsistency.  “Among those who have successfully laboured in the philological field, Mr. Lindley Murray stands forth in bold relief, as undeniably at the head of the list.”—­Kirkham’s Elocution, p. 12.  “The modern candidate for oratorical fame, stands on very different, and far more advantageous, ground, than that occupied by the young and aspiring Athenian; especially since a correct analysis of the vocal organs, and a faithful record of their operations, have been given to the world by Dr. James Rush, of Philadelphia—­a name that will outlive the unquarried marble of our mountains.”—­Ibid., p. 29.  “But what is to be said when presumption pushes itself into the front ranks of elocution, and thoughtless friends undertake to support it?  The fraud must go on, till presumption quarrels, as often happens, with its own friends, or with itself, and thus dissolves the spell of its merits.”—­Rush, on the Voice, p. 405.

OBS. 5.—­The question respecting the number of simple or elementary sounds in our language, presents a remarkable puzzle:  and it is idle, if not ridiculous, for any man to declaim about the imperfection of our alphabet and orthography, who does not show himself able to solve it.  All these sounds may easily be written in a plain sentence of three or four lines upon almost any subject; and every one who can read, is familiar with them all, and with all the letters.  Now it is either easy to count them, or it is difficult.  If difficult, wherein does the difficulty lie? and how shall he who knows not what and how many they are, think himself capable of reforming our system of their alphabetic signs?  If easy, why do so few pretend to know their number? and of those who do pretend to this knowledge, why are there so few that agree?  A certain verse in the seventh chapter