EXCURSIONS.
In one of his political papers Webster sketches the average American of
his time: "He makes a variety of utensils,--rough, indeed, but such as
will answer his purpose; he is a husbandman in summer and a mechanic in
winter; he travels about the country; he converses with a variety of
professions; he reads public papers; he has access to a parish library,
and thus becomes acquainted with history and politics, and every man in
New England is a theologian." I have already intimated that Webster
dissipated his strength, and it is only fair to state the facts in the
light of the conditions under which he lived. In the unorganized and
fluent state of society there was little room for a specialist; or, to
change the phrase for a more exact one, there was too much room. Every
educated man was called upon to occupy himself with a great variety of
tasks. The demand made by the republican experiment was very great.
People had practiced local self-government under monarchical supervision
for a long time; now they were bound to extend the sphere of their
political activity, and in the adjustment of the new machinery there was
abundant opportunity for all the ingenuity and wit of the educated class
to exercise itself. Then there was a great impetus given by politics to
the democratizing of the nation, and, in the rapid social changes of the
day, the educated class found itself well shaken up with the mechanic.
The terms which Webster employs of the average American may easily be
applied to all classes. Nice distinctions of rank and occupation could
not easily be maintained in a country where there was vastly more land
than could be tilled, where enterprise of every kind was limited only by
lack of labor, and where every citizen had his hand on the wheels of
government.
In a conventional way Webster would be classed amongst the educated men
of the country: he had received his diploma at one of the chief
colleges; his occupations were intellectual; his profession was the
liberal one of the law. Yet in a more real way he was a farmer's son,
and though he ceased early from manual labor his mental affiliations
were with the plain people rather than with the intellectual ones. He
seized all subjects by their practical side, and his instinct was to
apply the rough-and-ready rules of common sense to all questions,
whether of politics, theology, or philology. Such men as Belknap and
Hazard looked with disdain upon him; they felt rather than said that
Webster was not one of them. So, when living in Hartford, Webster was
not identified with the circle of Hartford wits. His mind was not subtle
or graceful; he had not the faculty of creating, nor, so far as I can
discover, of appreciating literature; but he had an uncommonly active
manufacturing mind, and in his intellectual workshop he made, as he said
of his average American, "a variety of utensils,--rough, indeed, but
such as will answer his purpose."
He had much in common with Franklin, to whom he was strongly drawn. He
had Franklin's eminent common sense and homeliness, by which he gained a
hearing from plain men and women; but he had not Franklin's crystal
style, his instinct for the fewest and best words, his happy use of a
language which seemed made for his thoughts. We noticed that in the
spelling-book he displayed a fondness for the wisdom of proverbs and
familiar sayings, and among his earliest writings were a series of pithy
homilies to the people upon questions of morals and manners, published
first in the Connecticut "Courant," but early collected into a volume
entitled "The Prompter;" a little book which one may trace to a good
many different printing-offices and to various sections of the country,
certainly the most widely spread of Webster's writings, after his
text-books, and the most worthy of a repeated life. If I am not
mistaken, it is even now making its little mark on character.
The sub-title of the book is "A Commentary on Common Sayings and
Subjects, which are full of Common Sense,--the best sense in the world;"
and in the preface, explanatory of the purpose of the book, Webster's
manner as a popular writer is well shown. "A Prompter," he remarks of
the happy title, "is the man who, in plays, sits behind the scenes,
looks over the rehearser, and with a moderate voice corrects him when
wrong, or assists his recollection when he forgets the next sentence. A
Prompter, then, says but little, but that little is very necessary, and
often does much good. He helps the actors on the stage at a dead lift,
and enables them to go forward with spirit and propriety. The writer of
this little book took it into his head to prompt the numerous actors
upon the great theatre of life; and he sincerely believes that his only
motive was to do good. He cast about to find the method of writing
calculated to do the most general good. He wanted to whip vice and folly
out of the country; he thought of 'Hudibras' and 'McFingal,' and
pondered well whether he should attempt the masterly style of those
writings. He found this would not do, for, like most modern rhymers, he
is no poet, and he always makes bungling work at imitation.
"The Prompter thought of the grave diction of sober, moral writers, and
the pompous, flowing style of modern historians. Fame began now to prick
up his vanity to try an imitation of the great Dr. Robertson, Dr.
Johnson, and Mr. Gibbon, those giants of literature. He thought if he
could muster dollars enough to buy a style-mill, which those heroes of
science undoubtedly used to cut out sentences for their works, he should
succeed to a tittle. But then it occurred to him that when he had cut
and shaped his periods into exact squares, diamonds, pentagons,
parallelograms, and other mathematical figures, they might not contain
very clear, precise, definite ideas; one half of his readers would not
understand him. The style-mill, then, or, as some people contemptuously
call it, the word-mill, would not answer the Prompter's purpose of doing
as much good as possible by making men wiser and better.
"At length he determined to have nothing to do with a brilliant flow of
words, a pompous elegance of diction; for what has the world to do with
the sound of words? The Prompter's business is with the world at large,
and the mass of mankind are concerned only with common things. A dish of
high-seasoned turtle is rarely found; it sometimes occurs at a
gentleman's table, and then the chance is it produces a surfeit. But
good solid roast beef is a common dish for all men; it sits easy on the
stomach, it supports, it strengthens and invigorates. Vulgar sayings and
proverbs, so much despised by the literary epicures, the Chesterfields
of the age, are the roast beef of science. They contain the experience,
the wisdom, of nations and ages compressed into the compass of a
nutshell. To crack the shell and extract the contents to feed those who
have appetites is the aim of this little book."
The several essays are expansive of the familiar sayings or proverbs
which stand for their titles, as, "It will do for the present," "I told
you so," "He is sowing his wild oats," "He would have his own way," "A
stitch in time saves nine," "Any other time will do as well," "He has
come out at the little end of the horn." The papers are all short, and
no time is wasted in coming at the point; indeed, there is a succession
of thrusts in each paper, and the reader is prodded more or less
efficiently at each step. Here, to give a single example, is Number
XVIII.: "What is everybody's business is nobody's."
"The consequence is that everybody and nobody are just the same
thing,--a truth most pointedly exemplified in the kitchen of a Southern
nabob. 'Phil!' says the mistress, with the air of an empress. Phil
appears. 'Go tell Peg to tell Sue to come along here and pick up a
needle.' 'Yes, ma'am,' answers Phil, and waddles back like a duck. 'Peg,
mistress says you must tell Sue to go to her and pick up a needle.' Peg
carries the message to Sue, but Sue is busy cleaning a candlestick.
'Well,' says Sue, 'I will go as soon as I have done.' The mistress wants
the needle; she waits ten or fifteen minutes, grows impatient. 'Phil,
did you tell Peg what I told you?' 'Ye--s, ma'am,' says Phil, drawling
out her answer. 'Well, why don't the jade do what I told her? Peg, come
here, you hussy! Did you tell Sue what Phil told you?' 'Yes, ma'am.'
'Well, why don't the lazy trollop come along? Here I am waiting for the
needle! Tell the jade to come instantly!'
"Risum teneatis? Hold, my readers don't know Latin; but can you help
laughing, my friends? Laugh, then, at the Southern nabob, with twenty
fat slaves in his kitchen,--laugh well at him, for there is cause
enough; then come _home_ and laugh.
"You want a good school, perhaps, and so do your neighbors. But whose
business is it to find a teacher, a house, etc.? 'John, I wish you would
speak to William to ask Joseph to desire our friend Daniel to set about
getting a good school. We want one very much; it is a shame to us to be
so negligent.' This is the last we hear of the good school. _What is
everybody's business is nobody's._
"You want to collect the public taxes into the treasury of the State.
The towns choose constables or collectors of taxes. No security is taken
for a faithful discharge of the trust, but a law is passed, which says,
like the mistress to her wenches, Treasurer, do you tell the constable
to collect and pay over the taxes. The collector, like the nabob's
slave, has no motive for diligence; he gets not half enough for
collecting to pay for his horse-flesh. He lounges about a year or two,
squanders away the money, and where is his bondsman? The town! Right,
the town is his bondsman. The law says, Treasurer, do you issue your
execution against the sheriff, and command him to levy upon the
constable, who is not worth a farthing; get a return of _non est
inventus_; then levy upon his bondsman, the town; take the estate of
everybody, post it for sale, get it receipted and not delivered; sue the
receipts-man, get the money, make the town pay it twice,--27,000l. in
arrears! It is a shame! Oh, such a bustle with Mr. Everybody, and all to
pick up a needle! The State is like the nabob's family. 'Phil, tell Peg
to tell Sue to pick up the needle.'
"Now in fact it is a very easy thing to pick up a needle, but if one
cannot stoop to pick it up another ought to be paid for it. One servant
who is paid for his work will pick up more needles than twenty fat,
lounging slaves that think it a drudgery and get nothing for it.
"It would be a good thing for a State to know that _everybody's business
is nobody's_. Every man in Connecticut is responsible for a faithful
collection of public money; then it is nobody's business. The Prompter
never saw a watch with two mainsprings, much less with two hundred. One
spring is enough, and that government, the executive of which depends
on many springs, will jar, clash, stop, and be always out of
order,--27,000l. in arrears.
"Appoint one collector, the treasurer; make him answerable for the
collection of the whole state revenue. Let him appoint his deputies; let
them be few, but let them be paid. All the difficulty will vanish; one
spring will move the whole; the state treasury, like the federal, will
be supplied; no arrears then, no levying executions on towns."
* * * * *
This happens to have its application to public affairs; most of the
twenty-eight papers have their special point in personal character. The
writing is not elegant; it is sometimes ungrammatical; but it is
intelligible, and with its bluntness could hardly fail to make itself
felt. It is when one compares it with similar work of Franklin's, as
"The Whistle," for example, that one is reminded of its inartistic form.
But Webster was always busy over subjects directly connected with the
well-being of the people. His philological work had its origin in this
motive, and in his miscellaneous writings he displayed his practical
philosophy and philanthropy. He wrote frequently upon banks and
banking; his "Epidemic and Pestilential Diseases" is pronounced by an
authority to have great historical value; he was one of the founders of
the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences; and in the numerous list
of his writings one comes upon such oddly assorted subjects as an
account of a tornado in Wethersfield, a cure for cancer, upon
white-washing, the mental arithmetic of a negro, on winds, upon female
education, on the decomposition of white-lead paint, a dissertation on
the supposed change in the temperature of winter, upon names of streets
in New York, on yellow fever, on the age of literary men, and one
article with the suggestive title "Number of Deaths in the Episcopal
Church in New York in each Month for Ten Years." He had a passion for
statistics which took an odd turn. In his diary one constantly finds an
enumeration of the houses in the town which he happens to be visiting.
"During his brief residence in New York," says one biographical sketch,
"Mr. Webster numbered the houses in the city, and found that they were
thirty-five hundred." He would count up one side of a street and down
the other, and place the results in his note-book. I think he published
in some paper the record of this individual census as applied to a
number of houses and villages. There must have been in his constitution
an inordinate love of detail, intensified, perhaps, by much
contemplation of those battalions of words which make his spelling-book
pages look like spiritual armies marching against ignorance.
We have already observed Webster's interest in political discussion, and
have tried to disclose something of his temper when viewing questions of
public policy. "The Prompter" was written with reference to the conduct
of life in individuals, but, as in the paper copied above, there is
constant regard to the American character, and to the manner in which
one should conduct himself in the new conditions of American life. The
general subject of Americanism was one upon which he was constantly
writing. We shall see later the length to which he carried his views in
relation to the American language; here we may note some of the
directions which his thought took when dealing with what may be called
the greater morals of national life. In his "Remarks on the Manners,
Government, and Debt of the United States," an odd combination of
subjects, apparently, but very closely connected in Webster's mind, he
undertakes to discover the cause of some of the political evils of the
day, and is led by his subject into regions lying outside of politics.
"A fundamental mistake of the Americans has been that they considered
the revolution as completed, when it was but just begun. Having raised
the pillars of the building, they ceased to exert themselves, and seemed
to forget that the whole super-structure was then to be erected. This
country is independent in government, but totally dependent in manners,
which are the basis of government. Men seem not to attend to the
difference between Europe and America in point of age and improvement,
and are disposed to rush with heedless emulation into an imitation of
manners for which we are not prepared....
"The present ambition of Americans is to introduce as fast as possible
the fashionable amusements of the European courts. Considering the
former dependence of America on England, her descent, her connection and
present intercourse, this ambition cannot surprise us. But it must check
this ambition to reflect on the consequences. It will not be denied that
there are vices predominant in the most polite cities in Europe which
are not only unknown, but are seldom mentioned, in America, and vices
that are infamous beyond conception. I presume it will not be denied
that there must be an amazing depravation of mind in a nation where a
farce is a publication of more consequence than Milton's poem, and where
an opera dancer, or an Italian singer, receives a salary equal to that
of an ambassador. The facts being known and acknowledged, I presume the
consequence will not be denied. Not that the charge is good against
every individual; even in the worst times there will be found many
exceptions to the general character of a nation....
"In some Asiatic countries people never change their mode of dress. This
uniformity, which continues for ages, proceeds from the same principles
as the monthly changes in England and France; both proceed from
necessity and policy. Both arise from good causes which operate in the
several governments; that is, the manners of each government are
subservient to its particular interest. The reverse is true of this
country. Our manners are wholly subservient to the interest of foreign
nations. Where do we find, in dress or equipage, the least reference to
the circumstances of this country? Is it not the sole ambition of the
Americans to be just like other nations, without the means of supporting
the resemblance? We ought not to harbor any spleen or prejudice against
foreign kingdoms. This would be illiberal. They are wise, they are
respectable. We should despise the man that piques himself on his own
country, and treats all others with indiscriminate contempt. I wish to
see much less jealousy and ill-nature subsisting between the Americans
and English. But in avoiding party spirit and resentment on the one
hand, we should be very careful of servility on the other. There is a
manly pride in true independence which is equally remote from insolence
and meanness,--a pride that is characteristic of great minds. Have
Americans discovered this pride since the declaration of peace? We
boast of independence, and with propriety. But will not the same men who
glory in this great event, even in the midst of a gasconade, turn to a
foreigner, and ask him, 'What is the latest fashion in Europe?' He has
worn an elegant suit of clothes for six weeks; he might wear it a few
weeks longer, but it has not so many buttons as the last suit of my Lord
----. He throws it aside, and gets one that has. The suit costs him a
sum of money; but it keeps him in the fashion, and feeds the poor of
Great Britain or France. It is a singular phenomenon, and to posterity
it will appear incredible, that a nation of heroes, who have conquered
armies and raised an empire, should not have the spirit to say, _We will
wear our clothes as we please_.
"Let it not be thought that this is a trifling subject, a matter of no
consequence. Mankind are governed by opinion; and while we flatter
ourselves that we enjoy independence because no foreign power can impose
laws upon us, we are groaning beneath the tyranny of opinion,--a tyranny
more severe than the laws of monarchs; a dominion, voluntary, indeed,
but, for that reason, more effectual; an authority of manners, which
commands our services, and sweeps away the fruits of our labor.
"I repeat the sentiment with which I began,--the Revolution of America
is yet incomplete. We are now in a situation to answer all the purposes
of the European nations,--independent in government, and dependent in
manners. They give us their fashions; they direct our taste to make a
market for their commodities; they engross the profits of our industry,
without the hazard of defending us, or the expense of supporting our
civil government. A situation more favorable to their interest or more
repugnant to our own they could not have chosen for us, nor we
embraced."
* * * * *
"Every man in New England is a theologian," says Webster in the passage
quoted at the head of this chapter, and Webster himself was no exception
to his statement. He published in "The Panoplist," and afterward in
pamphlet form, "The Peculiar Doctrines of the Gospel Explained and
Defended," an apology for Calvinism, which drew out an answer by "An
Old-fashioned Churchman." With more direct reference to his special
pursuits, he published "Mistakes and Corrections in the Common Version
of the Scriptures, in the Hebrew Lexicon of Gesenius, and in
Richardson's Dictionary."
The most considerable venture which Webster made in this field was in
his edition of the Bible. He was a Revision Committee of one, and went
to work with his customary self-confidence not to retranslate the Bible,
but to correct and improve its English, "with amendments of the
language," the title-page declares. His reasons for undertaking the work
and his principles of revision are given in the preface to his edition,
which was published at New Haven in 1833:--
... "In the present [King James] version, the language is, in general,
correct and perspicuous; the genuine popular English of Saxon origin;
peculiarly adapted to the subjects; and in many passages uniting
sublimity with beautiful simplicity. In my view, the general style of
the version ought not to be altered. But in the lapse of two or three
centuries changes have taken place, which in particular passages impair
the beauty, in others obscure the sense, of the original languages. Some
words have fallen into disuse; and the signification of others, in
current popular use, is not the same now as it was when they were
introduced into the version. The effect of these changes is that some
words are not understood by common readers, who have no access to
commentaries, and who will always compose a great proportion of readers;
while other words, being now used in a sense different from that which
they had when the translation was made, present a wrong signification or
false ideas. Whenever words are understood in a sense different from
that which they had when introduced, and different from that of the
original languages, they do not present to the reader the Word of God.
This circumstance is very important, even in things not the most
essential; and in essential points mistakes may be very injurious. In my
own view of this subject, a version of the Scriptures for popular use
should consist of words expressing the sense which is most common in
popular usage, so that the first ideas suggested to the reader should be
the true meaning of such words according to the original languages. That
many words in the present version fail to do this is certain. My
principal aim is to remedy this evil....
"In performing this task I have been careful to avoid unnecessary
innovations, and to retain the general character of the style. The
principal alterations are comprised in three classes:--
"1. The substitution of words and phrases now in good use for such as
are wholly obsolete, or deemed below the dignity and solemnity of the
subject.
"2. The correction of errors in grammar.
"3. The insertion of euphemisms, words and phrases which are not very
offensive to delicacy, in the place of such as cannot, with propriety,
be uttered before a promiscuous audience."
All this has a most familiar sound to-day, and when Webster goes on with
a plea for consideration and a doubt as to how his necessary work will
be received, we seem to hear again the apologies and defenses with
which the press has of late been filled. People have used the Bible so
long, Webster observes, that they have acquired a predilection for its
quaintnesses. "It may require," he continues, "some effort to subdue
this predilection; but it may be done, and for the sake of the rising
generation it is desirable.... As there are diversities of tastes among
men, it is not to be expected that the alterations I have made in the
language of the version will please all classes of readers. Some persons
will think I have done too little; others, too much. And probably the
result would be the same, were a revision to be executed by any other
hand, or even by the joint labors of many hands. All I can say is that I
have executed this work in the manner which, in my judgment, appeared to
be the best.... In this undertaking I subject myself to the charge of
arrogance; but I am not conscious of being actuated by any improper
motive. I am aware of the sensitiveness of the religious public on this
subject, and of the difficulties which attend the performance. But all
men whom I have consulted, if they have thought much on the subject,
seem to be agreed in the opinion that it is high time to have a
revision of the common version of the Scriptures; although no person
appears to know how or by whom such a revision is to be executed. In my
own view, such revision is not merely a matter of expedience, but of
moral duty; and as I have been encouraged to undertake this work by
respectable literary and religious characters, I have ventured to
attempt a revision upon my own responsibility. If the work should fail
to be well received, the loss will be my own, and I hope no injury will
be done. I have been painfully solicitous that no error should escape
me."
It is not difficult to understand Webster's attitude. He is a
school-master in this business, squaring Elizabethan English to suit the
regularity and uniformity of language which have been the dream of all
school-masters. Rules without exceptions represent the unattainable
ideal of mechanical minds. Webster, vainly endeavoring to reduce
language to an orderly system, was also moved to secure propriety and
decorum. He seems, therefore, to have gone through the book with his
pen, transposing words into a more formal order, removing quaintnesses,
changing old forms into current ones, putting on fig leaves, and, so far
as he dared, shaving the language to fit the measure of the speech of
his day. But he did not undertake the work as a scholar, aiming at a
more exact version, and his emendations, where the sense would be at all
affected, were very inconsiderable. He changed, to be sure, _take no
thought_ into _be not anxious_, as the Revisers have done, and he
incorporated into the text the marginal reading _to them_ for _by them_
in the passage, _Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old
times._ He substituted _demons_ for _devils_, as the American Committee
preferred; he tried to put _hell_ in its proper place, and in some
trivial instances he was more exact in his use of prepositions, but one
would look in vain for any sign of Hebrew or Greek scholarship beyond
the most rudimentary.
Nor in respect of English did he seem to have any conception of style or
color; he patched clauses with words of his time, when he desired to
remove an obsolete expression, without any sense, apparently, of
incongruousness, and he removed words which were still perfectly clear
in meaning, only because they would not in his day so be used. He was
very much disturbed by what he regarded as inelegance, and picturesque
phrases or words were likely to give way to more commonplace ones. He
did not like _gather together_ and substituted the more rotund
_assemble_, _collect_, or _convene_; _three score_ he wrote _sixty_; he
hustled out the strong phrase _gave up the ghost_, and put in its place
the "elegant" _expire_; _peradventure_ yielded to _perhaps_ or _it may
be; laugh to scorn_ he wrote _deride_. A good example of his
indifference to racy English is in his substituting _in health_ for
_safe and sound_ in the clause, _because he hath received him safe and
sound_. "This is another instance," he writes in his Introduction, "in
which the translators have followed popular use instead of the original
Greek, which signifies simply _well_ or _in health_."
Some of his alterations were in the direction of greater
intelligibility. He used _button_ instead of _tache_, _capital_ for
_chapiter_, and made Hebrew proper names in the New Testament conform to
the usage of the Old. "This will prevent illiterate persons, who
compose a large part of the readers of the Scriptures, from mistaking
the characters. Every obstacle to a right understanding of the
Scriptures, however small, should be removed, when it can be done in
consistency with truth." Like the American Committee he preferred _Holy
Spirit to Holy Ghost_, and was willing to drop the title _Saint_ from
the names of the evangelists, and having all the authority necessary he
made these changes. In other instances there appears an interesting
agreement between this independent American reviser of 1833 and the
American Committee of the present year; number VII. of the classes of
passages recorded at the close of the Revised version, as preferred by
the American Committee, reads: "Substitute modern forms of speech for
the following archaisms, namely, _who_ or _that_ for _which_ when used
of persons; _are_ for _be_ in the present indicative; _know_, _knew_,
for _wot_, _wist_; _drag_ or _drag away_ for _hale_," and Webster's
corrections upon the same plan are uniform. It is unquestionably due to
Webster that the American Committee had this preference, not to the
Webster who revised the Bible, for it is scarcely likely that his
revision was used for reference, but to the Webster who early proposed
such changes in the use of language and never ceased to urge them upon
every occasion. So, too, both agree in dropping _thy way_ from the
phrase _go thy way_; in saying _urgent_ for _instant_. The variations,
however, of the American Committee from the English have reference
largely to readings.
The great bulk of Webster's emendations were of the most trivial and
innocent character. _Whosoever_ and _whatsoever_ he always cut down by
the omission of the second syllable; _unto_ and _until_ he changed to
_to_ and _till_; _wherein_ and its fellows he usually rendered by _in
which_, _on which_, _in that_ or _this_; _ate_ he preferred to _did
eat_, and _yes_ to _yea_. It was in general a picayune revision,
sufficient to annoy those who had an ear for the old version, and really
offering only such positive helps in interpretation as were generally in
the possession of fairly educated men. That he should have done the work
at all and have done it so faintly is what surprises the reader. As a
commercial undertaking it was no mean matter, and it was followed by
the publication of an edition of the New Testament alone. What a strange
miscalculation of forces it appears to have been! It implied that
readers generally were as much martinets in language as the editor, and
it did not take into account the immense inertia to be overcome, when a
single man should undertake to set aside the accumulated reverence of
two centuries. The revision of the Bible by Webster was in singular
confirmation of traits of character which have already been noted. He
had unlimited confidence in himself, an almost childish ignorance of
obstacles, a persistence which was unembarrassed by the indifference of
others, and, from his long continued occupation, a habit of magnifying
the trivial. He had not, in such a work as this, the qualifications of a
scholar; he had simply the training of a school-master; he was ignorant
of what he was undertaking, and his independent revision of the Bible
failed to win attention, not because it was audacious, but because it
was not bold enough; it offered no real contribution to Biblical
criticism.
He secured for it, indeed, a certain endorsement. A testimonial, signed
by the president and the most distinguished members of the faculty of
Yale College, recites cautiously: "Dr. Webster's edition of the Bible,
in which the language of the translation is purified from obsolete,
ungrammatical, and exceptional words and phrases, is approved and used
by many clergymen and other gentlemen very competent to judge of its
merits," an ingenious form of words which, I hope, satisfied Dr.
Webster. Others, chiefly his neighbors in New Haven, signed more
elaborate documents, intended, apparently, to meet objections and
prejudices against a changed Bible. Webster himself declared to the
editors of a religious paper, whom he suspected to be unfriendly to his
design, "I consider this emendation of the common version as the most
important enterprise of my life, and as important as any benevolent
design now on foot; and I feel much hurt that my friends should
discountenance the design." This was written a few months after the
publication of the work. Eight years later, when he was in the
eighty-fourth year of his age, he still clung to the hope that his work
might be accepted and put to general use; he had already in his will
bequeathed to each of his grandchildren a copy of the book "handsomely
bound," the only one of his publications thus marked by his favor, and
the letter which at this time, a year before his death, he addressed to
the Members of the Eastern Association, in New Haven County, shows no
abatement in his faith.
"NEW HAVEN, _May 19, 1842_.
"GENTLEMEN: My edition of the Bible, with emendations of the language of
the common version, has been before the public about eight years. I have
heard no objection to the manner in which the work has been executed,
and, as far as my information extends, the work is generally approved by
those who have examined it, among whom are many clergymen, whose special
duty it is to guard the sacred text from corruption. The body of the
language in the common version was introduced by Tyndale more than three
hundred and twenty years ago. In the great length of time that has since
elapsed, the language has suffered many material changes, some of which
affect the sense of passages, rendering it obscure or unintelligible to
the unlettered part of readers. Some passages are perverted by the use
of wrong words, the grammatical errors are numerous, and many passages
are expressed in language which decency forbids to be repeated in
families and the pulpit. For these reasons it appears to me that a due
regard to the interest of religion requires a revision of the common
version. Indeed, all men seem to agree that amendments are wanted, but
who shall undertake the work? So numerous are the denominations of
Christians that no one would undertake it without the concurrence of
others, unless for sectarian purposes, and there is no probability that
a concurrence of all could be obtained. For these reasons it seems to be
obvious, that if any improvement is to be made in the version, the work
must be done by an individual. It is my desire that the association
shall take into consideration the propriety of rendering me their active
aid in prompting the use of the amended copy of the Bible in families
and schools. I am, gentlemen, with much respect, your obedient servant,
"N. WEBSTER."
His judgment has been partially confirmed, partially set aside. One
denomination did undertake a revision and failed; but contrary to
Webster's belief it has been found possible to obtain the concurrence of
different bodies of men for a revision which comes with weight, and
receives an attention not to be secured by testimonials of county
associations. There was a wide difference between Webster's conception
of a revision and that entertained by the distinguished scholars who
carried forward the recent one. I wonder if one of those scholars who
signed the non-committal endorsement of Webster's Bible may not, in the
midst of his recent labors, have contrasted in his mind the learned
company to which he belonged with the school-master who offered a Bible
"purified from the numerous errors."