from a common parent-race. Here the elements of uncertainty, by reason of the greater remoteness in time and the greater possibilities of place, would be more numerous than in the question we have been discussing. The evidence, both of language and of tradition, would be feebler and less trustworthy; and we can hardly suppose that Guidi places much. reliance on the attempt he makes to trace the progress of the Semites from the Aryo-Semitic home (southwest of the Caspian Sea, where the ark is supposed to have rested) to Babylonia by giving geographical and other interpretations to the names of Shem's descendants found in the second half of the eleventh chapter of Genesis.

4. The fourth direction in which data for the determination of our question have been sought, is the early history of the Semites as indicated by the results of recent researches in the Babylonian-Assyrian literature. According to these the Semites were preceded in the occupation of lower Mesopotamia by a civilized non-Semitic people, from whom they borrowed customs and laws, mythology, the art of writing, and their literature. If now it was the whole Semitic race that thus came under the influence of the Sumerian-Akkadians, we should expect to find its traces among all the nations of the race. But this is not the case; it is only in the northern division and among the Sabeans of South Arabia that there are signs of ancient contact with the old Chaldeans. It may be that the southern Arabs were affected by this people through their commercial relations by the way of the Persian Gulf. Of the others, the Babylonians and Assyrians naturally show the Akkadian influence most distinctly; next to them, so far as our present knowledge goes, come the Hebrews; and then the Phenicians and other Canaanites, and then the Arameans. These facts accord best with the supposition that only the northern Semites inhabited Babylonia, and that the various subdivisions departed from this point at different times; first, the Arameans, then the Canaanites and Phenicians, last of all the Hebrews. Possibly also it might be supposed that the Sabeans once dwelt there. More exactly, we should only have to suppose that all the northern Semites were once under

Sumerian-Akkadian influence. Among the Arabs proper, the Bedawin, there is no trace of this. Their customs, mythology, poetry, are altogether different from those of the northern division. Allowance must be made, it is true, for the recent origin of Arabian literature; some of their old tradition and mythology may have perished before the art of writing was introduced. It may be supposed that the Arabs separated from the main branch soon after they entered the TigrisEuphrates valley; but whether the separation took place immediately before or immediately after this entrance, the Arabic language could not be said to have been formed in Babylonia.

The established facts may be held to be these: the Babylonian-Assyrians and the Hebrews certainly, and the other north Semites probably, dwelt for a considerable time in and near the lower Euphrates valley, along with and under the influence of the Sumerian-Akkadians; at a very early period occurred the separation between the northern and southern divisions; the southern division, with the exception of the Sabeans, gives no evidence of having known the Akkadian civilization; the probability is that the Semites entered Babylonia on the southern rather than the northern side, that is, either by the Persian Gulf or by crossing the Tigris or Euphrates. These facts suggest conjectures, but they do not at present lead to any definite results; it can only be affirmed positively that some of the northern Semites dwelt at an early period in or near Lower Mesopotamia.

This is, I think, a fair statement of the facts bearing on the solution of our question. If it is only a negative conclusion to which we are led, that must be ascribed to the insufficient character of the data. It is not surprising that we should be unable to fix definitely so remote a period as that at which the Semites dwelt together and spoke one tongue; but it does not follow that it will never be fixed, or that researches in this direction are useless. If they are conducted with scientific precision and sobriety, though they may not solve the problem proposed, they will always yield valuable results. To avoid premature generalizations and precipitate judgments,

however, preliminary studies are necessary. While the decipherment of Assyrian inscriptions is slowly unveiling the early history of the Tigris-Euphrates valley, and the science of ethnology is throwing its light on the beginnings of races and civilizations, Semitic comparative grammar and lexicography must contribute its part by an exacter working up of the material of the various dialects; and to make comparisons reliable these dialects must first be severally studied. Up to this time the Assyrian, so important for the history of the Semitic tongue, remains without a satisfactory account of its dictionary and grammar; and the hardly less important Sabean is represented by so sparse materials that we have no very distinct knowledge of its character. There is room for much good work even in the vocabularies of languages that have been so long and so closely studied as Hebrew and Arabic. Every careful investigation of a particular point is a contribution to general grammar, and to such reconstruction of ancient history as general grammar may be able to make. The essays of Schrader and Guidi above cited contain discussions that have a grammatical or historical value independent of their immediate object, and in respect to the question of the home of the Semites, have at least shown the insufficiency of certain data, and the necessity of wider researches. But, while it is true that in searching for something unattainable by the resources at our command we are often led to valuable discoveries, it is still always better to know the conditions and preliminaries of our search, and to do the preparatory work before setting out, the preparatory work in this case being minute study and comparison of the several Semitic dialects. When the proper facts shall have been gathered, the results, in the departments of grammar and history, will show themselves with unmistakable clearness.

III.-The New Spellings of the Philological Society of London.

WHEN the Philological Society of London undertook last year to prepare a list of words in corected spelling for imediate use, it was confidently expected that the Comittee of the American Philological Association to which such matters ar referd would be able cordialy to endorse the hole English list. The leaders in the movement wer known to be agreed as to the ultimate spelling at which reformers should aim. It was supozed that the list would contain only such words as coud be drawn nearer to this ultimate spelling without obscuring their etymology or pronunciation to the general reader.

It proved, however, that members who wer agreed as to what it would be desirabl to do, wer of very different opinions as to what can be done, and what it is best to try to do.

Perhaps the way in which the list was prepared was not a good one. Changes wer propozed in open meeting, voted on one by one, and adopted by a majority vote. Sum members probably had no system in mind, but voted on each corection as it happend to strike them. Perhaps the members prezent at the different meetings wer not the same; the discussions lasted from July 9, 1880 to January 28, 1881,-six meetings. The rezult is that the final list is probably not such as any member would hav prepared, and sum of the members hav taken ocazion to say so to the public. The Prezident, Mr. A. J. Ellis, is one of theze. He believs in forming and urging a complete fonetic system for use side by side with the old spelling at first. He devotes the main part of his prezidential adress to an atack on partial reform. This adress is publisht, of course. Mr. Ellis has also publisht his disent in the English periodicals.

Dezirabl as it would be to giv to the report as a hole the prestige which would be gaind from the unanimous endorsment of all the filologists interested in the reform, that is now impossibl. The Comittee of the American Philological Association has therefore felt quite free to adopt for its own report only such of the recomendations of the English Society as it can cordialy endorse, and it has not thought it wurth while to discuss the details.

Perhaps it may interest this Association, however, to hav the English pamflet pretty fully set forth with comments in a separate paper.

The pamflet is spelt acording to the recomendations of the Society, and the extracts from it in this paper follow the same spelling; but the remarks of the writer of the paper ar spelt acording to the recomendations of the American Comittee.

It begins with a mention of works of reference, a half a duzen English books and pamflets by Sweet, George Withers, Max Müller, J. H. Gladstone, and others. Then there ar ten pages devoted to "general principles."

1. The objects of the Spelling Reform. Theze ar stated to be:.

a. To facilitate the acquizition of English spelling; thereby