In the _Atlantic Monthly_ of October, 1921, an enemy of simplified spelling writes as follows: “Spelling is not a craft by itself: it is a part of writing and reading, training of eye and hand. When a boy writes ‘starboard martyr’ for ‘Stabat Mater,’ or ‘forehead’ for ‘forward,’ he writes what he hears; the fault is not with his ear but with his visual image of the words. It means that he is not a reader, and is not accustomed to the appearance of the words. To try to teach him the distinctions by lists of letters alone would be about as useless as to try to teach him to distinguish people he never saw by means of verbal descriptions.”[15] [Illustration: FIG. 10.—Composition written at school by X in December, 1920. X was then in grade 5B. The facts are correctly understood, but the spelling does not show great profit from previous reading of the text in history. ] Have psychologists produced any evidence to show whether the view is correct, that reading will teach spelling? The positive correlation between ability to read and ability to spell does not, of course, give light on this question. Neither does correlation between amount of reading done and ability to spell, for the positive correlation, which would undoubtedly appear, might mean only that general intelligence determines both the amount of reading and accuracy of spelling, to the extent of positive correlation found. [Illustration: FIG. 11.—Letter written by X showing how he could spell by use of dictionary. ] The case of X, described in Chapter IV, is somewhat instructive in this connection. The necessity to learn reading was so urgent that it was soon decided to give no time to spelling as such. The special teaching did not, therefore, include formal instruction in written spelling. The regular spelling lessons at school were, of course, taken by X, as well as might be. After X had learned the letters thoroughly, so that he never erred in writing one, he made great improvement in his grades on the regular spelling lessons given at school, in which assigned words were learned by rote. Words not thus specifically learned were spelled “by ear,” with the general result which is exemplified in Figure 10. X was taught the use of the dictionary, and by its aid he could spell as shown in Figure 11. In German or Italian, the mutual helpfulness of reading and spelling would probably be much greater, for words in these languages are not nearly so specific in character as English words are. VI. ILLUSTRATIVE CASES Two cases are herewith given, to illustrate the marked discrepancies which may rarely be found between general intelligence and ability to spell. The first is that of a schoolboy of average intelligence, whose spelling is illegible. The second is that of a feeble-minded schoolgirl, whose spelling is very much above what would be predicted from mental age and IQ. [Illustration: