so little do I regard his criticism, so great is my aversion
to contention, and so thorough my contempt for mere mousing
word-catching, that he might have gone on and vented his spleen
unheeded; but since he has seen fit thus wantonly to assail my
private character, and to impeach my motives, and since he has
attempted to sustain himself in this unjustifiable attack, by
misapplying my language and distorting my meaning, I conceive
myself called upon to expose his duplicity and baseness. That he
is utterly incapable of discovering any thing in the grammatical
works of others, but faults and defects, I need not show, for the
article in question saves me the trouble; but that his assault upon
me savors strongly of malevolence and dishonesty, I shall presently
_prove_. He has, nevertheless, stated some facts in relation to
my Grammar, although, as it appears, quite unintentionally; and,
as far as facts stated by _him_ can have any influence with the
public, they will do me good. On the other hand, he has made many
statements concerning me and my works, which are _not_ founded upon
facts. Most of these, however, so clearly show the evil design of the
critic, that they need no reply. As they carry with them their own
antidote, I have nothing to apprehend from their poison. But some of
these misstatements are more adroitly managed, and are calculated
to mislead the unsuspecting reader. I allude to his charges brought
against both my personal and my grammatical character, which he
has attempted to support by garbling, torturing, misquoting,
misconstruing, and misapplying my language, and thereby _perverting_
my meaning. In order, therefore, that the public may be disabused on
these points, I shall proceed to take them up in order.
After denouncing me as a 'bad writer,'and as wanting in
'scholarship,' and insinuating that I would 'bribe the critics and
reviewers,' my liberal and _pious_ censor all at once discovers,
through his rusty spectacles, not only that I am so unprincipled as
totally to disregard 'accuracy' and usefulness in authorship, but
that my 'principal business is to turn my publication to profit;'
that I am, in short, a real worshipper of Midas; and, in order to
prove himself correct in this marvellous discovery, the _honest_ man
presents his readers with the following passage:
'Murray,' says he, 'simply intended to do good, and good which
might descend to posterity. This intention goes far to excuse
even his errors. But Kirkham says, 'My pretensions reach not
so far. _To the present generation only_ I present my claims.'
_Elocution_, p. 364. His whole design is, therefore, a paltry
scheme of present income.'
The injustice and roguery of this passage, it is impossible for the
casual reader fully to conceive. After forming a postulate to fit his
own purpose, the critic ransacks my works to garble a passage that,
by contortion and misapplication, shall fit it in such a manner as
to make me utter a _libel_ against my own moral character! My pen
falters while I expose the duplicity of this transaction. 'Murray
simply intended to do good.' Kirkham says, 'My pretensions reach
not so far.' So far as what? As to _do good_, of course. This is
undoubtedly the meaning INTENDED to be conveyed by the wily critic.
But let us look at the meaning of the passage, when taken in its
original connexion, as it stands in my Elocution. It occurs at the
close of that work, in some eulogistic remarks made upon Dr. JAMES
RUSH, the distinguished author of the 'Philosophy of the Human
Voice.' The whole passage reads thus:
'Dr. Rush, in his 'Philosophy of the Human Voice,' boldly
addresses _posterity_. This is manly; and I hazard little in
prophesying, that posterity will gladly give him a hearing.
My pretensions reach not so far. To the present generation
only I present my claims. Should it lend me a listening ear,
and grant me its suffrages, the height of my ambition will be
attained. Though unwilling to be a mere _time-server_, yet I
know not that I have any thing on which to rest my claims upon
generations to come.'
Now instead of saying in this passage that 'my pretensions reach not
so far as _to do good_,' I simply say, that they reach not so far
_as those of Dr. Rush_!--and the passage is so free from ambiguity
as to render it impossible for my opponent to have mistaken my
meaning. Mistaken it, indeed! He very well KNEW, when he penned
this slanderous paragraph, that my professed object in writing
school-books WAS to 'do good;' and yet he has the hardihood to hoax
his readers into the belief that I openly disavow any such intention!
Comment is unnecessary. And yet this is the modest man who has the
effrontery to call in question the _motives_ of him whom he traduces;
to lecture him upon the principles of morality and justice; and
cantingly to quote scripture _at_ him! He intimates that I have not
the moral courage to 'dare to do right.' I have the courage to dare
to _tell the truth_.
But since my antagonist has maliciously attempted, by misquoting my
language, to prove that I disavow any intention either to do good or
to do right, perhaps I may be indulged in a few quotations, too, from
my own works, merely with the view of presenting this matter in its
proper light:
'In gratitude, therefore, to that public which has smiled
so propitiously on his humble efforts to advance the cause
of learning, he has endeavored, by unremitting attention to
the _improvement_ of his work, to render it as _useful_ and
as _unexceptionable_ as his time and talents would permit.'
_Kirkham's Grammar_, p. 7.
'Apprehensive, however, that no explanatory effort on his
part, would shield him from the imputation of arrogance, by
such as are blinded by self-interest, or by those who are
wedded to the doctrines and opinions of his predecessors, with
_them_ he will not attempt a compromise; being, in a great
measure, indifferent either to their praise or their censure.
But with the candid he is willing to negotiate an amicable
treaty, knowing that they are always ready to enter into it
on honorable terms. In this negotiation, he asks nothing more
than merely to rest the merits of his work on its _practical
utility_.' _Grammar_ p. 9.
'Content to be _useful_, instead of being _brilliant_, the
writer of these pages has endeavored to shun the path of those
whose aim appears to have been to dazzle, rather than to
instruct.' _Grammar_, pp. 9 and 10.
'He has taken the liberty _to think for himself_, to
investigate the subject critically and dispassionately,
and to adopt such principles only as he deemed the least
objectionable, and best calculated to effect the object he had
in view.' _Grammar_, p. 10.
'Should these feeble efforts prove a saving of much time and
expense to those young persons who may be disposed to pursue
this science with avidity, by enabling them easily to acquire
a critical knowledge of a branch of education so important and
desirable, _the author's fondest anticipations will be fully
realized_.' _Grammar_, p. 12.
'This flattering success, then, in his first essay in
authorship, (alluding to my Grammar,) has encouraged the writer
to adventure upon another branch of science, which, for some
years past, has particularly engaged his attention. That he is
capable of doing ample justice to his present subject, he has
not the vanity to imagine; but, if his knowledge, drawn from
observation, and experience in teaching elocution, enable him
so to treat the science as to call the attention of some to
its cultivation, and induce others more capable than himself
to write upon it, he will thereby contribute his mite toward
rescuing from neglect a branch of learning, which, in its
important bearings upon the prosperity of the free citizens
of this great republic, stands second to none; and thus, in
the consciousness of _having rendered a new service to his
country_, he will secure the reward of his highest ambition.'
_Kirkham's Elocution_, p. 8.
These examples are sufficient to show, at least as far as my own
observations are concerned, by what motives I have been actuated
in the production of my works. That these motives are more pure or
patriotic than those of other men who have written upon the same
subjects, I have never pretended; for I am ready to acknowledge
that I am subject to the weaknesses and infirmities common to human
nature. But it is evident, that what has so greatly annoyed my
antagonist is not the defects, but the success, of my Grammar.
In the following passage, our critic attempts to prove me grossly
inconsistent with myself:
'Nothing can be more radically opposite,' says he, 'than are
some of the elementary doctrines which this gentleman is now
teaching; nothing more strangely inconsistent than are some of
his declarations and professions. For instance: 'A consonant is
a letter that cannot be perfectly sounded without the help of
a vowel.' _Kirkham's Grammar_, p. 19. Again: 'A consonant is
not only capable of being perfectly sounded without the help of
a vowel, but, moreover, of forming, like a vowel, a separate
syllable.' _Kirkham's Elocution_, p. 32. Once more: Upon _his
own rules_, he comments thus, and comments truly, because he
had written them badly: 'But some of these rules are foolish,
trifling, and unimportant.' _Elocution_, p. 97. Again: 'Rules
10 and 11, rest on a sandy foundation. They appear not to be
based upon the principles of the language.' _Grammar_, p. 59.
These are but specimens of his own frequent testimony against
himself!'
Now, in these instances, I should be fair game, were it not for the
_trifling_ difference, that I happen to present the doctrines and
notions of _other writers_, and WAS my own, as stated by my learned
censor. For example; in 1823, I introduced into my Grammar, as Mr.
Murray's definition, the old notion, that 'A consonant is a letter
that cannot be perfectly sounded without the help of a vowel.' But in
1834, I presented in my Elocution Dr. Rush's opposite opinion, and
_ascribed_ it to him. If, therefore, I had become fully satisfied
that Dr. Rush is correct, it would behoove me to alter the definition
as it stands in my Grammar; but, inasmuch as I am yet undecided on
this point, I have not thought proper to do so.
Again, our critic says: 'Upon _his own rules_ he comments thus:'
'But _some_ of these rules are foolish,' etc. Now this assertion is
utterly UNTRUE; and, if Goold Brown read the whole passage from which
he quotes, as he ought to have done, he KNEW he was asserting what
was false. The rules in question, are introduced into the notes of my
Elocution as JOHN WALKER'S, and NOT as my own; as any one may see,
by referring to that work. Similar remarks are applicable to 'Rules
10 and 11,' in my Grammar, both of which are taken from Murray; and
this, too, Goold Brown as well knew, when he brought this charge
of inconsistency against me, as he knew that in making it, he was
LIBELLING me. Really, when a critic is driven to such crooked shifts
as these to make out his case, it needs no farther evidence to prove
that it is a bad one.
But the foulest calumny in this tirade of abuses and
misrepresentations, is contained in the following passage, in which,
after having dealt out the most illiberal strictures, and the most
unsparing condemnations and denunciations, upon my Grammar, he
pretends to _support_ his calumnies, by showing me up as a perfect
ignoramus in the science of grammar:
'In general,' says he, 'his amendments of 'that eminent
philologist,' (Mr. Murray,) are not more skilful than the
following touch upon an eminent dramatist; and here, it is
plain, he has mistaken two nouns for adjectives, and converted
into bad English a beautiful passage, the sentiment of which is
worthy of an _author_'s recollection:
'The evil deed or deeds that men do, _lives_ after them:
The good deed or deeds _is_ oft interred with their bones.'
_Kirkham's Grammar_, p. 75.'
In my Grammar, the phrase 'deed or deeds' is included in a bracket,
and therefore, as every one acquainted with Cobb's Spelling-Book well
knows, is not intended to be read as a part of the sentence, but as
an explanatory clause. The couplet stands thus, in my book:
'The evil [deed or deeds] that men do, lives after them;
The evil [deed or deeds] is oft interred with their bones.'
The casual reader of my Grammar will have observed, that I often
introduce examples to be analyzed, in which an _ellipsis_ occurs,
and that I supply these elliptical words in brackets, and frequently
present two or three forms or sets of words, leaving it for the pupil
to adopt whichever form he pleases, though not without respect to the
construction that is to follow. For example; if in the words supplied
in the bracket, both a singular and a plural form occur, as in the
example before us, in parsing it, the pupil may take _either_ form
or word for his nominative; but if he adopt the singular, he must
also employ a singular verb to agree with it; but if the plural,
a plural verb must follow. Hence it is obvious that the effect of
leaving out the bracket in this passage, is totally to destroy my
design, and pervert my meaning; and not merely that, but also to make
me write language so grossly ungrammatical, that even a tyro, who
has studied my lectures on grammar ten hours, would at once correct
it. The knavery of this trick is transcended only by its meanness,
and I will venture to say, is without a parallel in the annals of
hypercriticism. It is so bare-faced, indeed, as to defeat its own
object: and for the benefit of the _gentleman_ who practised it upon
his readers, I will quote another passage from 'the immortal bard,'
'the sentiment of which,' I hope, will sink deep into his heart, and
be long remembered by him, and lead him to reform his morals and mend
his manners:
'Who steals my Purse, steals trash:
'Twas mine; 'tis his; and has been slave to thousands;
But he who filches from me my good name,
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
But makes me poor indeed.'
But, excepting those founded on misquotations, and perversions of my
meaning, what are the _arguments_ wielded by this chivalrous knight
of the goose-quill? In the first place, he admits that, by some
means, the popularity of my work has become such, in a short time, as
to create a demand for _sixty thousand copies in a year_; (A FACT;)
and yet, he denies that it possesses the least particle of merit, and
denounces it as one of the 'worst' grammars ever written! Admirable
logician! But what a slander is this upon the public taste! What an
insult to the understanding and discrimination of the good people of
these United States! What! a book have NO merit, and yet be called
for at the rate of sixty thousand copies a year! According to this
reasoning, all the inhabitants of our land must be fools, except
_one_ man, and that man is Goold Brown! What would this disinterested
'vindicator of a greatly injured and perverted science' give, if this
same foolish and gullible community would but purchase only _sixteen
hundred_ copies per annum of his own precious work upon grammar?
That Goold Brown is possessed of a degree of critical acumen
sufficient to distinguish himself as a grammatical _tinker_, in
which vocation the main business is that of adjusting and arranging
words, and rasping and filing the points and hinges of sentences,
I am willing to admit; and, moreover, that he is _industrious_ in
this noble employment, as well as in defaming other writers, I do
not deny; but that he possesses enough of scholastic acquirement,
and capaciousness and force of intellect, to grasp a new system, or
originate an important improvement in science, remains for him yet to
show to the world. The encomiums bestowed upon him for his industry,
excite not my envy; for I firmly believe, that he will go farther in
the chase of a little idea, and pursue it with more ardor, and dodge
more corners to catch it, than any other living author. It would be
ungenerous, therefore, to deprive him of any of the honors due to him
on this score. It may be well, nevertheless, for those who laud him
for his industry, to bear in mind, that his labors are commendable or
otherwise, exactly in proportion to the good or ill that results from
them.
That his Grammar is destitute of merit, I have never asserted; or
that its faults far exceed its merits, though easily proved, it
is not my present object to show. Let the history of its success
(or rather _want_ of success) tell the tale. Goold Brown has most
disingenuously insinuated that the great success of my Grammar is
awing wholly to extrinsic circumstances. How can this be, when it
has never been favored with that main-spring of a large circulation,
the business efforts of an interested publisher! No publisher has
ever had any thing more than a temporary interest in it, secured by a
very limited contract; an interest too inconsiderable to justify any
formidable efforts to extend its circulation; whereas Goold Brown's
Grammar has enjoyed the advantages of being pushed by a book-seller
who has secured, I am told, a _permanent_ interest in his work. I
leave the natural deduction from these facts, to be made by the
reader.
Goold Brown's efforts as a writer have proved his merits to be of
that order which can never command the attention of the public, nor
be crowned with any considerable degree of popularity or success. In
his style, he displays many of those lighter graces and excellencies
which pass for cleverness with such as look more at smoothness of
diction and accuracy of expression, than at force of argument, or
depth and strength of thought. In his criticism of my Grammar, he
has displayed as little of the manly vigor of a scholar, as of the
courtesy or candor of a gentleman; and in his unjust attack upon
my private character, I think I have clearly shown, that he has
evinced far less of wisdom and moderation, than of malevolence and
vindictiveness. If, in his eagerness to anathematize and victimize
me, he has sometimes so far forgotten the dignity of the critic as
to descend to scurrility and coarse language, I will charitably
ascribe the fault to the _heart_, rather than to the head. Unenvious
of the laurels he may glean in such an inglorious strife, I have not
attempted to imitate him in his manners, nor to rival him in his
illiberally; and therefore I have not plainly called him a knave, a
liar, or a pedant: but, in the most polite and civil language that
the nature of the case would admit, I have endeavored to PROVE that
each of these terms might be justly applied to him with emphatic
force.
To avoid being misunderstood, I must be permitted to say, that
however much I may contemn the abuse, yet no man entertains a more
profound respect for the use, of true criticism, than myself; and had
my antagonist treated me with but a moderate share of decency, and
one-half the liberality that candor and justice demanded, he would
have received my bow, and have saved himself the present castigation.
I delight not in contention. I never sought it with any one. No man
can accuse me of ever having assailed a brother-author, or of having
laid a straw in the path of a rival. But then, my spirit inhabits a
citadel of flesh and blood, and will not brook to be bullied by a
ruffian. There is a point beyond which, if forbearance be extended,
it ceases to be a virtue.
Goold Brown professes to be my personal friend, and to 'rejoice at my
success.' If he were sincere in this profession, he would not treat
me with invective, nor garble my language to sustain his unfounded
accusations against me. If he were sincere in his professions, and
consistent in his opinions, he would not _now_ condemn my Grammar,
and slanderously assert that it is one of the 'worst' books of the
kind ever written; for, seven years ago last autumn, he praised,
and _highly_ praised, this self-same Grammar, and declared it to be
'A GOOD WORK!'[8] If he were sincere in his professions, or honest
in his declarations, he would not hypocritically pretend that 'the
vindication of a greatly injured and perverted science' constrained
him to say what he has said concerning me and my works, when every
page and paragraph of his abusive remarks clearly shows, that they
flowed from a splenetic mind, mortified by disappointment, soured by
neglect, embittered by defeat, and lashed up to fury by the success
of a rival whom he lacked the power, but not the will, to crush.
Goold Brown knows that what little of learning and fame I have
acquired, are the fruits of my own industry. Having never inherited a
patrimony, nor received the favors of a guardian, they are honestly
come by; and so are the emoluments I receive by way of copy-right;
and he admits that I am 'liberal with my gains.' Why then does he
seek to destroy me? He knows, too, that I have endured more hardship,
suffered more from bodily infirmity, and drank more deeply of the cup
of adversity, than most men of my age. Why then does he persecute me,
and attempt to wrest from me the just meed of praise and patronage
which the public are willing to bestow?
I admit that my Grammar has its defects, (and whose has not?) and
that, on account of what my countrymen have been pleased to view as
excellencies in it, they have been indulgent to its faults. And I
repeat, that had Goold Brown pointed out any of these, though in his
peculiarly censorious and dogmatical manner, I should have received
his criticisms kindly; for I have always held it as a maxim, that
a man can never be too well informed to be instructed, even by his
enemies and his inferiors. But when a man so far degrades himself
as to deal in general denunciation, and coarse invective, instead
of just and manly criticism, he neither enlightens the public, nor
benefits him whom he assails.
The _motive_ of the critic in furnishing to the reviewers this
particular 'extract' from a work which, only 'at some future,
perhaps _distant_ day, is to be given to the public,' is too clearly
shown to be mistaken. Why does he thus early put his MS. into the
reviewers' hands, when the publication of his 'Great Grammar of
Grammars' is to be deferred to some 'distant day?' Or, if he must
needs thrust himself before the public at once, why does he herald
his approach by that particular portion of his work which denounces
me? The answer is obvious. Lest the whole world should be converted
to the grammatical faith as it is in KIRKHAM, it would not do to
wait for the publication of his 'Great Grammar of Grammars,' but it
becomes necessary, for the double purpose of annihilating me, and of
giving the public a foretaste of the choice things he has in store
for them, to have this tremendous criticism appear forthwith; and,
judging from the dainty morsel he has thus thrown out as a bait, a
rare dish it must be! Judging from this specimen, (which of course
must be one of his _best_, or he would not have sent it forth as a
sample,) we may fairly conclude, that his whole 'Great Grammar of
Grammars' will contain an ample store of pedantry and sophistry,
calumny and hypercriticism. Since, however, he has thus early
discharged so large a quantity of bile, we may hope that he will be
able to keep cool until his 'Great Grammar of Grammars' shall appear;
and when that portentous event shall occur, we venture to predict
that the great work which has so many HOT things in it, will soon be
as cool as its author. This prophecy, however, may not be palatable
to our critic; for, having failed in writing for money, he appears
now to be scratching for fame; and it is evident that he believes the
size of his forthcoming volume, taken in connection with its pompous
title, will render him immortal.
I do not know that I can more profitably close these remarks, than
by calling the serious attention of my antagonist to the sentiments
contained in the following extract from the preface to my Elocution,
a personal application of which, I doubt not, would do him good: