a correspondent asks me to make more lucid my remarks about phonetic spelling. i have no detailed objection to items of spelling-reform; my objection is to a general principle; and it is this. it seems to me that what is really wrong with all modern and highly civilised language is that it does so largely consist of dead words. half our speech consists of similes that remind us of no similarity; of pictorial phrases that call up no picture; of historical allusions the origin of which we have forgotten. take any instance on which the eye happens to alight. i saw in the paper some days ago that the well-known leader of a certain religious party wrote to a supporter of his the following curious words: "i have not forgotten the talented way in which you held up the banner at birkenhead." taking the ordinary vague meaning of the word "talented," there is no coherency in the picture. the trumpets blow, the spears shake and glitter, and in the thick of the purple battle there stands a gentleman holding up a banner in a talented way. and when we come to the original force of the word "talent" the matter is worse: a talent is a greek coin used in the new testament as a symbol of the mental capital committed to an individual at birth. if the religious leader in question had really meant anything by his phrases, he would have been puzzled to know how a man could use a greek coin to hold up a banner. but really he meant nothing by his phrases. "holding up the banner" was to him a colourless term for doing the proper thing, and "talented" was a colourless term for doing it successfully.

now my own fear touching anything in the way of phonetic spelling is that it would simply increase this tendency to use words as counters and not as coins. the original life in a word (as in the word "talent") burns low as it is: sensible spelling might extinguish it altogether. suppose any sentence you like: suppose a man says, "republics generally encourage holidays." it looks like the top line of a copy-book. now, it is perfectly true that if you wrote that sentence exactly as it is pronounced, even by highly educated people, the sentence would run: "ripubliks jenrally inkurrij hollidies." it looks ugly: but i have not the smallest objection to ugliness. my objection is that these four words have each a history and hidden treasures in them: that this history and hidden treasure (which we tend to forget too much as it is) phonetic spelling tends to make us forget altogether. republic does not mean merely a mode of political choice. republic (as we see when we look at the structure of the word) means the public thing: the abstraction which is us all.

a republican is not a man who wants a constitution with a president. a republican is a man who prefers to think of government as impersonal; he is opposed to the royalist, who prefers to think of government as personal. take the second word, "generally." this is always used as meaning "in the majority of cases." but, again, if we look at the shape and spelling of the word, we shall see that "generally" means something more like "generically," and is akin to such words as "generation" or "regenerate." "pigs are generally dirty" does not mean that pigs are, in the majority of cases, dirty, but that pigs as a race or genus are dirty, that pigs as pigs are dirty—an important philosophical distinction. take the third word, "encourage." the word "encourage" is used in such modern sentences in the merely automatic sense of promote; to encourage poetry means merely to advance or assist poetry. but to encourage poetry means properly to put courage into poetry—a fine idea. take the fourth word, "holidays." as long as that word remains, it will always answer the ignorant slander which asserts that religion was opposed to human cheerfulness; that word will always assert that when a day is holy it should also be happy. properly spelt, these words all tell a sublime story, like westminster abbey. phonetically spelt, they might lose the last traces of any such story. "generally" is an exalted metaphysical term; "jenrally" is not. if you "encourage" a man, you pour into him the chivalry of a hundred princes; this does not happen if you merely "inkurrij" him. "republics," if spelt phonetically, might actually forget to be public. "holidays," if spelt phonetically, might actually forget to be holy.

here is a case that has just occurred. a certain magistrate told somebody whom he was examining in court that he or she "should always be polite to the police." i do not know whether the magistrate noticed the circumstance, but the word "polite" and the word "police" have the same origin and meaning. politeness means the atmosphere and ritual of the city, the symbol of human civilisation. the policeman means the representative and guardian of the city, the symbol of human civilisation. yet it may be doubted whether the two ideas are commonly connected in the mind. it is probable that we often hear of politeness without thinking of a policeman; it is even possible that our eyes often alight upon a policeman without our thoughts instantly flying to the subject of politeness. yet the idea of the sacred city is not only the link of them both, it is the only serious justification and the only serious corrective of them both. if politeness means too often a mere frippery, it is because it has not enough to do with serious patriotism and public dignity; if policemen are coarse or casual, it is because they are not sufficiently convinced that they are the servants of the beautiful city and the agents of sweetness and light. politeness is not really a frippery. politeness is not really even a thing merely suave and deprecating. politeness is an armed guard, stern and splendid and vigilant, watching over all the ways of men; in other words, politeness is a policeman. a policeman is not merely a heavy man with a truncheon: a policeman is a machine for the smoothing and sweetening of the accidents of everyday existence. in other words, a policeman is politeness; a veiled image of politeness—sometimes impenetrably veiled. but my point is here that by losing the original idea of the city, which is the force and youth of both the words, both the things actually degenerate. our politeness loses all manliness because we forget that politeness is only the greek for patriotism. our policemen lose all delicacy because we forget that a policeman is only the greek for something civilised. a policeman should often have the functions of a knight-errant. a policeman should always have the elegance of a knight-errant. but i am not sure that he would succeed any the better n remembering this obligation of romantic grace if his name were spelt phonetically, supposing that it could be spelt phonetically. some spelling-reformers, i am told, in the poorer parts of london do spell his name phonetically, very phonetically. they call him a "pleeceman." thus the whole romance of the ancient city disappears from the word, and the policeman's reverent courtesy of demeanour deserts him quite suddenly. this does seem to me the case against any extreme revolution in spelling. if you spell a word wrong you have some temptation to think it wrong.