axon sounds. Accordingly,
the form _th_ was required to stand for both. For the Germans, he says,
call _thing, Ding_, and _father, Vater_.[M] In his alphabet he gives
_though_ and _thistle_ as expressing the two sounds, which is precisely
consonant with present usage. On page 152, speaking of the difficulties
of English pronunciation to a foreigner, he says, "Etenim si has quinque
voculas, _What think the chosen judges_? quid censent electi judices?
recte protuleris, omnem loquendi difficultatem superasti." Ben Jonson in
his Grammar gives similar examples, and speaks also of the loss of the
Saxon signs as having made a confusion. It is certain, then, at least,
that Shakspeare did not pronounce _thing, ting_,--or, if he did, that
others did not, as we shall presently show.

[Footnote M: Praefatio, p. 6. We abridge his statement.]

Most of Mr. White's arguments in support of his opinion are theoretic;
the examples by which he endeavors to sustain it tell, with one
exception, against him. That exception is his quoting from one of
Shakspeare's sonnets the rhyme _doting_ and _nothing_. But this proves
nothing (noting?); for we have already shown that Shakspeare, like all
his contemporaries, was often content with assonance, where identity
could not be had, in rhyming. Generally, indeed, the argument from
rhymes is like that of the Irishman who insisted that _full_ must be
pronounced like _dull_, because he found it rhyming with _b[)u]ll_. Mr.
White also brings forward the fact, that _moth_ is spelt _mote_, and
argues therefrom that the name of the Page Moth has hitherto been
misconceived. But how many _th_ sounds does he mean to rob us of? And
how was _moth_ really pronounced? Ben Jonson rhymes it with _sloth_ and
_cloth_; Herrick, with _cloth_. Alexander Gill tells us (p. 16) that it
was a Northern provincialism to pronounce _cloth_ long (like _both_),
and accordingly we are safe in believing that _moth_ was pronounced
precisely as it is now. Mr. White again endeavors to find support in the
fact that _Armado_ and _renegado_ are spelt _Armatho_ and _renegatho_
in the Folio. Of course they were, (just as the Italian _Petruccio_ and
_Boraccio_ are spelt _Petruchio_ and _Borachio_,) because, being
Spanish words, they were so pronounced. His argument from the frequent
substitution of _had_ for _hath_ is equally inconclusive, because we
may either suppose it a misprint, or, as is possible, a mistake of the
printer for the Anglo-