opinion of its defects than either its author or its patrons. That my unwillingness to adopt the system of Professor Lepsius did not arise from any predilection for my own Missionary Alphabet, I have proved by adopting, when I write in English, the system of Sir William Jones. My own system was, in every sense of the word, a missionary system. My object was, if possible, to devise an alphabet capable of expressing every variety of sound that could be physiologically defined, and yet not requiring one single new or artificial type. As in most languages we find, besides the ordinary sounds that can be expressed by the ordinary types, one, or at the utmost two modifications to which certain letters or classes of letters are liable, I proposed italics as exponents of the first degree of modification, small capitals as exponents of the second degree. Thus as, besides the ordinary dentals, t, th, d, dh, we find in Sanskrit the linguals, I proposed that these should be printed as italics, t, th, d, h, instead of the usual but more difficult types, t', th', d', dh', or t, th, d, dh. As in Arabic we find, besides the ordinary dentals, another set of linguals, I proself against Dr. Lepsius's proposal to write the clicks before their accompanying letters. He at the same time advanced some etymological arguments in support of his own view. How is the African missionary answered by the Berlin Professor? I quote Professor Lepsius's reply, which, if it did not convince, must have startled and stunned his humble adversary. Equally little," he writes, "should we be justified in infer 66 ring from the fact that in the Sanskrit let'i (sic), be licks, from fa̸ē lih, and fa ti, t' (sic) must be pronounced not as th (sic), but as ht (sic)." How the change of Sanskrit h and t into d' is dh, not th) has any bearing on the Rev. J. L. Döhne's argument about the clicks, I am afraid few missionaries in Africa will understand. r, posed to express these too by italics. These italics were only intended to show that the dentals printed in italics were not meant for the usual dentals. This would have been sufficient for those not acquainted with Sanskrit or Arabic, while Sanskrit and Arabic scholars could have had little doubt as to what class of modified dentals was intended in Sanskrit or Arabic. If certain letters require more than one modification, as, for instance, t, s, n, г, — then small capitals would have come in, and only in very extreme cases would an additional diacritical mark have been required for a third modification of one common type. If through the princely liberality of one opulent society, the Church Missionary Society, complete founts of complicated and expensive types are to be granted to any press that will ask for them, there is no further need for italics or small capitals, — mere makeshifts that could only have recommended themselves to poor missionaries wishing to obtain the greatest results by the smallest means. It is curious, however, that, in spite of all that has been urged against a systematic use of italics, italics crop out almost everywhere both in philological works at home and in missionary publications abroad, while as yet I have very seldom met with the Church Missionary for the vowel in French cœur, or with the Church Missionary the Sanskrit sh, as written by Sir W. Jones. for Within the circle of languages in which I take a more immediate interest, the languages of India, the adoption of the alphabet advocated by the Church 1 See Resolution 2, carried August 26, 1861, at the Church Missionary House, London. Missionary Society seems now, after the successful exertions of Sir Charles Trevelyan, more than hopeless; nor do I think that for people situated like the modern Hindús such a pis-aller as italics and small capitals is likely to be popular. Living in England, and writing chiefly for England and India, I naturally decided to follow that system which was so modestly put forth by Sir William Jones in the first volume of the "Asiatic Researches," and has since, with slight modifications, not always improvements, been adopted by the greatest Oriental scholars in India, England, and the Continent. In reading that essay, written about eighty years ago, one is surprised to see how well its author was acquainted with all that is really essential either in the physiological analysis or in the philological definition of the alphabet. I do not think the criticism of Professor Lepsius quite fair when he imputes to Sir W. Jones "a defective knowledge of the general organism of sounds, and of the distinct sounds to be represented"; nor can I blame the distinguished founder of the Asiatic Society for the imperfect application of his own principles, considering how difficult it is for a scholar to sacrifice his own principles to con siderations of a more practical nature. The points on which I differ from Sir W. Jones are of very small consequence. They arise from habit rather than from principle. I should willingly give them up if by so doing I could help to bring about a more speedy agreement among Sanskrit scholars in England and India. I am glad to find that in the second edition of his "Standard Alphabet" Professor Lepsius has acknowledged the prac tical superiority of the system of Sir W. Jones in several important points, and I think he will find that his own system may be still further improved, or at all events have a better chance of success in Europe as well as in India, if it approaches more and more closely to that excellent standard. The subjoined table will make this clearer than any comment: Sanskrit Alphabet, as transcribed by Sir W. Jones, M. M., in the Missionary, and in the Church Missionary Alphabets. |