PREPARATION FOR THE DICTIONARY.
It is not an uncommon experience by which a young man strikes at once
the note of his career, then appears to wander or experiment, and
returns more surely to his original expression, following that steadily
to the end. It was thus with Webster. His "Grammatical Institute,"
inclosing the perennial speller, was his first declaration; then he made
ventures in different directions, but returned to studies in language,
and finally embodied the results of his life-time in his great
Dictionary. In reading biography, we wish to get at the ruling passion
of the man; how often the man himself seems bewildered in his search for
it, groping in this direction and in that, uncertain, to use Dr.
Bushnell's vigorous phrase, if he has yet grasped the handle of his
being. It cannot be said that Webster ever laid aside his special
studies and resumed them after long intervals. His earliest and most
characteristic work, "A Grammatical Institute," was always by him, and
the Speller, which emerged from it, became of so much pecuniary
importance that it could not fail to determine in many ways his
occupation. The "Minerva" from the first had constant advertisements
both of "A Grammatical Institute" and of the early volume of
"Dissertations"; there were frequent announcements of new editions of
the Spelling-Book, and of the rate at which it could be had in
quantities. Country merchants began to lay in supplies of Webster's
Spelling-Book, when they came to the nearest trading town, as
confidently as they bought West India goods or English tools. Webster
gave lectures, as he traveled north and south, upon the English
language. His reputation was forming upon this line, and it is not
unlikely that his partial failure in political and journalistic work was
due to his identification with the occupation of a school-master. A more
complete account would be that he did not do these things thoroughly
well, because his strongest attraction was in another direction. He
seems, through the twenty years or more which followed the first
publication of his Spelling-Book, to have his hand close by the
throttle-lever without knowing it. The practical demands of self-support
no doubt controlled his inclinations, and forced him into one situation
after another where his choice would not send him, and he spent these
years in a struggle for maintenance. Then he was an impulsive, a
generous, and an ambitious man. He loved society; he liked the stir of
men and the bustle of management. As we have already seen, he was ready
to venture all he had upon the stakes which his ardor set up. He took
risks in publishing, which could be justified only by his own
enthusiasm, and entertained himself with speculations in literature
which were agreeable to contemplate, but often disastrous to realize.
There is a half-despairing letter to Josiah Quincy[13] which discloses
the hard lines of his practical life. Trumbull had jested at Webster's
slight capital for house-keeping, and Webster himself reached points in
his career where even Institutes and Dissertations seemed to fail him.
The letter is dated at New Haven, February 12, 1811. He writes with
some irritation, "My name has been so much bandied about that I am quite
willing it should be seen and heard no more at present," and then passes
to the more important matters in his mind: "I am engaged in a work which
gives me great pleasure, and the tracing of language through more than
twenty different dialects has opened a new and before unexplored field.
I have within two years past made discoveries which, if ever published,
must interest the literati of all Europe, and render it necessary to
revise all the lexicons--Hebrew, Greek, and Latin--now used as classical
books. But what can I do? My own resources are almost exhausted, and in
a few days I shall sell my house to get bread for my children. All the
assurances of aid which I had received in Boston, New York, etc., have
failed, and I am soon to retire to a humble cottage in the country. To
add to my perplexity, the political measures pursuing render it almost
impossible to sell property, or to obtain money upon the best security.
A few thousand dollars, for which I can give security, would place me in
a condition in the country to live with comfort and pursue my studies;
but even this cannot be obtained till the measures of Congress assume a
more auspicious aspect. Adieu, dear sir. The little Band will no doubt
do their duty, but what can be done against the army of slaves?
Alexander Wolcott!! We must drink the cup of disgrace to the dregs!
Yours, in low spirits,
"N. WEBSTER, JUN."
If the letter was an indirect appeal to Mr. Quincy to advance a few
thousand dollars on good security, it does not seem to have effected its
purpose, and a man with money to lend would not have his confidence in
the borrower's capacity to repay it increased by knowing that the time
of the loan was to be occupied in making astonishing discoveries in the
roots of language. It has often been stated that Dr. Webster supported
himself and large family, during the twenty or thirty years he was
employed in the preparation of his great Dictionary, mainly by a
copyright of one cent or less on his Spelling-Book, and it is quite
certain that the several other enterprises in which he engaged never
supported him while they were going on, and often resulted in losses.
But what a picture the letter presents of an impecunious scholar,
bewitched by his pursuit, and sure that it was to end in some vast
result! He writes like an inventor who needs but little to enable him to
perfect a machine which is to revolutionize labor.
It was only a few years after the first publication of the
Spelling-Book, and while Webster was still unmarried and trying his hand
at various occupations, that he published "A Collection of Essays and
Fugitiv Writings on Moral, Historical, Political, and Literary
Subjects." The short-tailed word on the title-page is an oddity intended
probably to attract the reader's attention and lead him to look within.
The contents embrace thirty essays, originally written or published
between the years 1787 and 1790, but before the reader comes upon the
table of contents he is likely to stop at the Preface with its antics of
spelling. We are tolerably used by this time to reformed spelling, but
Webster was a pioneer, and his contemporaries must have looked with some
amazement at what they could only think of as deformed spelling. Here
they could be told soberly:--
"During the course of ten or twelv yeers I hav been laboring to correct
popular errors, and to assist my yung brethren in the road to truth and
virtue; my publications for theez purposes hav been numerous; much time
haz been spent, which I do not regret, and much censure incurred, which
my hart tells me I do not dezerv. The influence of a yung writer cannot
be so powerful or extensiv az that of an established karacter; but I hav
ever thot a man's usefulness depends more on exertion than on talents. I
am attached to America by berth, education, and habit; but abuv all, by
a philosophical view of her situation, and the superior advantages she
enjoys, for augmenting the sum of social happiness....
"The reeder will obzerv that the orthography of the volum iz not
uniform. The reezon iz, that many of the essays hav been published
before, in the common orthography, and it would hav been a laborious
task to copy the whole, for the sake of changing the spelling.
"In the essays ritten within the last yeer, a considerable change of
spelling iz introduced by way of experiment. This liberty waz taken by
the writers before the age of Queen Elizabeth, and to this we are
indeted for the preference of modern spelling over that of Gower and
Chaucer. The man who admits that the change of _housbonde_, _mynde_,
_ygone_, _moneth_ into husband, mind, gone, month, iz an improovment,
must acknowledge also the riting of helth, breth, rong, tung, munth, to
be an improovment. There iz no alternativ. Every possible reezon that
could ever be offered for altering the spelling of wurds, stil exists in
full force; and if a gradual reform should not be made in our language,
it will proov that we are less under the influence of reezon than our
ancestors."
This passage from the Preface, as well as those papers in the volume
which follow the same style of orthography or rather cacography, will
illustrate well enough the unprincipled character of the reform as it
lay in Webster's mind. He acted upon the merest empiricism apparently,
without any well-considered plan, making the spelling occasionally
conform to the sound, but allowing even the same sounds to have
different representation in different words. Indeed, in the extract
given above, he appears to be rather a timid reformer, attacking such
defenseless little words as _is_, and respectfully passing by _would_
and _offered_. The general appearance of those essays in the volume
which are printed after Webster's own heart leads one happening upon
them nowadays into some disappointment, since they are by no means to be
ranked with the humorous writings of later mis-spellers, who have
contrived to get some fun out of venerable words by pulling off their
wigs and false teeth and turning them loose in the streets.
It is very likely that Webster's first impulse to reform our spelling
was given by Dr. Franklin's writings on the subject. As is well known,
that philosopher went so far as to devise new characters for compound
letters such as _th_, _sh_, _ng_, anticipating many of the later
experiment in phonic writing. Webster entered with zeal into the notion,
and held a correspondence with Franklin, in which the young man showed
himself so ardent a disciple of the old as to win for himself a certain
place as the doctor's residuary legatee in ideas. "This indefatigable
gentleman," says Webster of Franklin, "amidst all his other employments,
public and private, has compiled a Dictionary on his scheme of a reform,
and procured types to be cast for printing it. He thinks himself too old
to pursue the plan; but has honored me with the offer of the manuscript
and types, and expressed a strong desire that I should undertake the
task. Whether this project, so deeply interesting to this country, will
ever be effected, or whether it will be defeated by indolence and
prejudice, remains for my countrymen to determine." The last clause,
with all its obscurity, may be taken as a threat rather than as a
self-reproach. The entire correspondence between Webster and Franklin is
interesting as setting forth a certain excess of experimenting ardor in
Franklin and an unlooked-for degree of conservatism in Webster. Franklin
was the older man, but he was the more daring. One should credit him,
however, with a certain amount of humor in his whims. He played with
the English language, somewhat as he amused himself with conferring
legacies at compound interest, to take effect in two hundred years, and
giving away gravely millions of money by the immediate planting of a few
hundreds.
If the first impulse came from Franklin, the controlling reason must be
looked for in Webster's patriotism. It was no trifling desire to put
into practice an engaging theory, but a conviction of public gain which
moved Webster to proclaim his reform. He has left abundant testimony to
this effect. After giving a brief historical sketch of the changes to
which the English language had been subjected, in the Appendix to his
"Dissertations," he proceeds:--
"The question now occurs: ought the Americans to retain these faults
which produce innumerable inconveniences in the acquisition and use of
the language, or ought they at once to reform these abuses, and
introduce order and regularity into the orthography of the AMERICAN
TONGUE?" He throws all the emphasis possible upon these words by the use
of large type, and then sketches the nature of the proposed reform,
returning in the conclusion to his favorite position of the influence
upon national speech and manners.
The whole statement is so interesting, especially when taken into
comparison with the recent declarations of war by eminent American
philologists, that I transfer it to these pages.
"Several attempts were formerly made in England to rectify the
orthography of the language.[14] But I apprehend their schemes failed of
success rather on account of their intrinsic difficulties than on
account of any necessary impracticability of a reform. It was proposed,
in most of these schemes, not merely to throw out superfluous and silent
letters, but to introduce a number of new characters. Any attempt on
such a plan must undoubtedly prove unsuccessful. It is not to be
expected that an orthography, perfectly regular and simple, such as
would be formed by a 'Synod of Grammarians on principles of science,'
will ever be substituted for that confused mode of spelling which is now
established. But it is apprehended that great improvements may be made,
and an orthography almost regular, or such as shall obviate most of the
present difficulties which occur in learning our language, may be
introduced and established with little trouble and opposition. The
principal alterations necessary to render our orthography regular and
easy are these:
"1. The omission of all superfluous or silent letters; as _a_ in
_bread_. Thus _bread_, _head_, _give_, _breast_, _built_, _meant_,
_realm_, _friend_, would be spelt _bred_, _hed_, _giv_, _brest_, _bilt_,
_ment_, _relm_, _frend_. Would this alteration produce any
inconvenience, any embarrassment or expense? By no means. On the other
hand, it would lessen the trouble of writing, and, much more, of
learning the language; it would reduce the true pronunciation to a
certainty; and while it would assist foreigners and our own children in
acquiring the language, it would render the pronunciation uniform in
different parts of the country, and almost prevent the possibility of
changes.
"2. A substitution of a character that has a certain definite sound for
one that is more vague and indeterminate. Thus by putting _ee_ instead
of _ea_ or _ie_, the words _mean_, _near_, _speak_, _grieve_, _zeal_,
would become _meen_, _neer_, _speek_, _greev_, _zeel_. This alteration
could not occasion a moment's trouble; at the same time it would prevent
a doubt respecting the pronunciation; whereas the _ea_ and _ie_, having
different sounds, may give a learner much difficulty. Thus _greef_
should be substituted for _grief_; _kee_ for _key_; _beleev_ for
_believe_; _laf_ for _laugh_; _dawter_ for _daughter_; _plow_ for
_plough_; _tuf_ for _tough_; _proov_ for _prove_; _blud_ for _blood_;
and _draft_ for _draught_. In this manner ch in Greek derivatives should
be changed into _k_; for the English _ch_ has a soft sound as in
_cherish_; but _k_ always a hard sound. Therefore _character_, _chorus_,
_colic_, _architecture_, should be written _karacter_, _korus_, _kolic_,
_arkitecture_, and were they thus written no person could mistake their
true pronunciation. Thus _ch_ in French derivatives should be changed
into _sh_; _machine_, _chaise_, _chevalier_, should be written
_masheen_, _shaze_, _shevaleer_, and _pique_, _tour_, _oblique_, should
be written _peek_, _toor_, _obleek_.
"3. A trifling alteration in a character, or the addition of a point,
would distinguish different sounds without the substitution of a new
character. Thus a very small stroke across _th_ would distinguish its
two sounds. A point over a vowel in this manner, _[.a]_ or _[.o]_ or
[_=i_], might answer all the purposes of different letters. And for the
diphthong _ow_ let the two letters be united by a small stroke, or both
engraven on the same piece of metal, with the left hand line of the _w_
united to the _o_. These, with a few other inconsiderable alterations,
would answer every purpose, and render the orthography sufficiently
correct and regular.
"The advantages to be derived from these alterations are numerous,
great, and permanent.
"1. The simplicity of the orthography would facilitate the learning of
the language. It is now the work of years for children to learn to
spell; and after all, the business is rarely accomplished. A few men,
who are bred to some business that requires constant exercise in
writing, finally learn to spell most words without hesitation; but most
people remain all their lives imperfect masters of spelling, and liable
to make mistakes whenever they take up a pen to write a short note. Nay,
many people, even of education and fashion, never attempt to write a
letter without frequently consulting a dictionary. But with the proposed
orthography, a child would learn to spell, without trouble, in a very
short time, and the orthography being very regular, he would ever after
find it difficult to make a mistake. It would, in that case, be as
difficult to spell _wrong_ as it is now to spell _right_. Besides this
advantage, foreigners would be able to acquire the pronunciation of
English, which is now so difficult and embarrassing that they are either
wholly discouraged on the first attempt, or obliged, after many years'
labor, to rest contented with an imperfect knowledge of the subject.
"2. A correct orthography would render the pronunciation of the language
as uniform as the spelling in books. A general uniformity thro the
United States would be the event of such a reformation as I am here
recommending. All persons, of every rank, would speak with some degree
of precision and uniformity. Such a uniformity in these States is very
desirable; it would remove prejudice, and conciliate mutual affection
and respect.
"3. Such a reform would diminish the number of letters about one
sixteenth or eighteenth. This would save a page in eighteen; and a
saving of an eighteenth in the expense of books is an advantage that
should not be overlooked.
"4. But a capital advantage of this reform in these States would be,
that it would make a difference between the English orthography and the
American. This will startle those who have not attended to the subject;
but I am confident that such an event is an object of vast political
consequence. For,
"The alteration, however small, would encourage the publication of books
in our own country. It would render it, in some measure, necessary that
all books should be printed in America. The English would never copy our
orthography for their own use; and consequently the same impressions of
books would not answer for both countries. The inhabitants of the
present generation would read the English impressions; but posterity,
being taught a different spelling, would prefer the American
orthography.
"Besides this, a _national language_ is a band of _national union_.
Every engine should be employed to render the people of this country
_national_; to call their attachments home to their own country; and to
inspire them with the pride of national character. However they may
boast of independence, and the freedom of their government, yet their
_opinions_ are not sufficiently independent; an astonishing respect for
the arts and literature of their parent country, and a blind imitation
of its manners, are still prevalent among the Americans. Thus an
habitual respect for another country, deserved indeed and once laudable,
turns their attention from their own interests, and prevents their
respecting themselves."
He supposes various objections to this reform: that it would oblige
people to relearn the language; that it would render present books
useless; that it would injure the language by obscuring etymology; that
the distinction between words of different meanings and similar sound
would be destroyed; that it was idle to conform the orthography of words
to the pronunciation, because the latter was continually changing. All
these objections he considers and meets with arguments more familiar to
us than they were to men of his day, and then concludes:--
"Sensible I am how much easier it is to _propose_ improvements than to
_introduce_ them. Everything new starts the idea of difficulty, and yet
it is often mere novelty that excites the appearance; for on a slight
examination of the proposal the difficulty vanishes. When we firmly
believe a scheme to be practicable, the work is half accomplished. We
are more frequently deterred by fear from making an attack, than
repulsed in the encounter.
"Habit also is opposed to changes, for it renders even our errors dear
to us. Having surmounted all difficulties in childhood, we forget the
labor, the fatigue, and the perplexity we suffered in the attempt, and
imagine the progress of our studies to have been smooth and easy. What
seems intrinsically right is so merely thro habit. Indolence is another
obstacle to improvements. The most arduous task a reformer has to
execute is to make people _think_; to rouse them from that lethargy,
which, like the mantle of sleep, covers them in repose and contentment.
"But America is in a situation the most favorable for great
reformations; and the present time is, in a singular degree, auspicious.
The minds of men in this country have been awakened. New scenes have
been, for many years, presenting new occasions for exertion; unexpected
distresses have called forth the powers of invention; and the
application of new expedients has demanded every possible exercise of
wisdom and talents. Attention is roused, the mind expanded, and the
intellectual faculties invigorated. Here men are prepared to receive
improvements, which would be rejected by nations whose habits have not
been shaken by similar events.
"_Now_ is the time, and _this_ the country, in which we may expect
success in attempting changes favorable to language, science, and
government. Delay in the plan here proposed may be fatal; under a
tranquil general government the minds of men may again sink into
indolence; a national acquiescence in error will follow, and posterity
be doomed to struggle with difficulties which time and accident will
perpetually multiply.
"Let us, then, seize the present moment and establish a _national
language_ as well as a national government. Let us remember that there
is a certain respect due to the opinions of other nations. As an
independent people, our reputation abroad demands that, in all things,
we should be federal, be _national_; for, if we do not respect
ourselves, we may be assured that other nations will not respect us. In
short, let it be impressed upon the mind of every American, that to
neglect the means of commanding respect abroad is treason against the
character and dignity of a brave, independent people."
In the matter of pronunciation, Webster asserted similar principles in
his earliest essays. He denounces the custom of referring to English
standards for the determination of sounds. In the "Remarks on the
Manners, Government, and Debt of the United States," which I quoted in
the last chapter, he finds fault with his countrymen for their
dependence upon England.
"This same veneration for eminent foreigners and the bewitching charms
of fashion have led the Americans to adopt the modern corruptions of our
language. Very seldom have men examined the structure of the language to
find reasons for their practice. The pronunciation and use of words have
been subject to the same arbitrary or accidental changes as the shape of
their garments. My lord wears a hat of a certain size and shape; he
pronounces a word in a certain manner; and both must be right, for he is
a fashionable man. In Europe this is right in dress; and men who have
not an opportunity of learning the just rules of our language are in
some degree excusable for imitating those whom they consider as
superiors. But in men of science this imitation can hardly be excused.
Our language was spoken in purity about eighty years ago, since which
time great numbers of faults have crept into practice about the theatre
and court of London. An affected, erroneous pronunciation has in many
instances taken place of the true, and new words or modes of speech have
succeeded the ancient correct English phrases. Thus we have, in the
modern English pronunciation, their natshures, conjunctshures,
constitshutions, and tshumultshuous legislatshures, and a long catalogue
of fashionable improprieties. These are a direct violation of the rules
of analogy and harmony; they offend the ear and embarrass the language.
Time was when these errors were unknown; they were little known in
America before the Revolution. I presume we may safely say that our
language has suffered more injurious changes in America, since the
British army landed on our shores, than it had suffered before in the
period of three centuries. The bucks and bloods tell us that there is no
proper standard in language; that it is all arbitrary. The assertion,
however, seems but to show their ignorance. There are, in the language
itself, decisive reasons for preferring one pronunciation to another;
and men of science should be acquainted with these reasons. But if there
were none, and everything rested on practice, we should never change a
general practice without substantial reasons. No change should be
introduced which is not an obvious improvement."
Elsewhere, in a similar spirit, he writes: "Nothing but the
establishment of schools and some uniformity in the use of books can
annihilate differences in speaking, and preserve the purity of the
American tongue. A sameness of pronunciation is of considerable
consequence in a political view, for provincial accents are disagreeable
to strangers, and sometimes have an unhappy effect upon the social
affections.... As an independent nation our honor requires us to have a
system of our own, in language as well as government. Great Britain,
whose children we are, and whose language we speak, should no longer be
our standard; for the taste of her writers is already corrupted, and her
language on the decline. But if it were not so, she is at too great a
distance to be our model, and to instruct us in the principles of our
own tongue.... Rapid changes of language proceed from violent causes,
but these causes cannot be supposed to exist in North America. It is
contrary to all rational calculation that the United States will ever
be conquered by any one nation speaking a different language from that
of the country. Removed from the danger of corruption by conquest, our
language can change only with the slow operation of the causes before
mentioned, and the progress of arts and sciences, unless the folly of
imitating our parent country should continue to govern us and lead us
into endless innovation. This folly, however, will lose its influence
gradually, as our particular habits of respect for that country shall
wear away, and our _amor patriæ_ acquire strength, and inspire us with a
suitable respect for our own national character. We have, therefore, the
fairest opportunity of establishing a national language, and of giving
it uniformity and perspicuity in North America, that ever presented
itself to mankind."
His standard of pronunciation is thus defined: "The rules of the
language itself, and the general practice of the nation, constitute
propriety in speaking. If we examine the structure of any language we
shall find a certain principle of analogy running through the whole. We
shall find in English that similar combinations of letters have usually
the same pronunciation, and that words having the same terminating
syllable generally have the accent at the same distance from that
termination. These principles of analogy were not the result of design;
they must have been the effect of accident, or that tendency which all
men feel toward uniformity. But the principles, when established, are
productive of great convenience, and become an authority superior to the
arbitrary decisions of any man or class of men. There is one exception
only to this remark: When a deviation from analogy has become the
universal practice of a nation, it then takes place of all rules, and
becomes the standard of propriety. The two points, therefore, which I
conceive to be the basis of a standard in speaking are these: universal,
undisputed practice, and the principle of analogy. Universal practice is
generally, perhaps always, a rule of propriety; and in disputed points,
where people differ in opinion and practice, analogy should always
decide the controversy.
"There are authorities to which all men will submit; they are superior
to the opinions and caprices of the great, and to the negligence and
ignorance of the multitude. The authority of individuals is always
liable to be called in question; but the unanimous consent of a nation,
and a fixed principle interwoven with the very construction of a
language, coeval and coextensive with it, are like the common laws of a
land, or the immutable rules of morality, the propriety of which every
man, however refractory, is forced to acknowledge, and to which most men
will readily submit."
Here is the doctrine of majorities, and it will be seen that Webster's
conception of usage is not the usage of the most cultivated, but the
general usage of a people. It was the democratic principle carried to
its utmost length, and yet the notion of an inhering law was quite as
strongly held. Our interest in this portion of his work is in the
examples which he gives of the usage of his day. He points out a number
of instances in which the different sections of the Union were at
variance, and some of these characteristics have certainly disappeared.
Webster's memoranda may be taken with some confidence, for he was a
minute observer, and his opportunities of comparison were excellent.
In the Eastern States he finds a good many people saying _motive_; in
the Middle States some who say _prejudice_. _E_ before _r_ is often
pronounced like _a_, as _marcy_ for _mercy_, an error which he refers
rather illogically to the practice of calling the letter _r ar_, so that
in his Spelling-Book he writes its sound _er_; "in a few instances," he
says, "this pronunciation is become general among polite speakers, as
_clerk_, _sergeant_, etc." In calling attention to the New England
custom of preferring the sound of _i_ short or _e_ before the diphthong
_ow_, as in _kiow_ for _cow_, Webster gravely refers the disagreeable
peculiarity "to the nature of their government and a distribution of
their property." Let the reader reflect a moment before he reads
Webster's philosophical explanation, and see if his own cogitations lead
him in the right direction. "It is an undoubted fact that the drawling
nasal manner of speaking in New England arises almost solely from these
causes. People of large fortunes, who pride themselves on family
distinctions, possess a certain boldness, dignity, and independence in
their manners, which give a corresponding air to their mode of speaking.
Those who are accustomed to command slaves form a habit of expressing
themselves with the tone of authority and decision. In New England,
where there are few slaves and servants, and less family distinctions
than in any other part of America, the people are accustomed to address
each other with that diffidence, or attention to the opinion of others,
which marks a state of equality. Instead of commanding, they advise;
instead of saying, with an air of decision, _you must_; they ask, with
an air of doubtfulness, _is it not best_? or give their opinions with an
indecisive tone; _You had better, I believe._ Not possessing that pride
and consciousness of superiority which attend birth and fortune, their
intercourse with each other is all conducted on the idea of equality,
which gives a singular tone to their language and complexion to their
manners.... Such are the causes of the local peculiarities in
pronunciation which prevail among the country people in New England, and
which, to foreigners, are the objects of ridicule. The great error in
their manner of speaking proceeds immediately from not opening the mouth
sufficiently. Hence words are drawled out in a careless lazy manner, or
the sound finds a passage thro the nose."
This may have the merit of ingenuity, but in connection with it Webster
makes a sounder observation when he compares New England perpetuating
old English idioms because of her isolation, to an internal village
contrasted with a city. "New England has been in the situation of an
island; during one hundred and sixty years, the people, except in a few
commercial towns, have not been exposed to any of the causes which
effect great changes in language and manners."
To continue these notes: he finds the use of _w_ for _v_ prevalent in
Boston and Philadelphia, as _weal_ for _veal_, but unknown in Hartford.
"Vast numbers of people in Boston and the neighborhood use _w_ for _v_;
yet I never once heard this pronunciation in Connecticut." He regards
this use as the survival of old custom, but since the nation in general
had made a distinction, every person should resign his peculiarities
for the sake of uniformity. "The words _either_, _neither_, _deceit_,
_conceit_, _receipt_, are generally pronounced by the Eastern people
_ither_, _nither_, _desate_, _consate_, _resate_. These are errors; all
the standard authors agree to give _ei_ in these words the sound of
_ee_. This is the practice in England, in the Middle and Southern
States, and, what is higher authority, analogy warrants the practice."
He hesitates between _oblige_ and _obleege_, the weight of authority
being equally divided, but analogy persuades him to the former. Analogy
also requires Európean, though modern fashionable speakers have been
introducing the innovation of Européan. "In the Middle and Southern
States _fierce_, _pierce_, _tierce_, are pronounced _feerce_, _peerce_,
_teerce_. To convince the people of the impropriety of this
pronunciation, it might be sufficient to inform them that it is not
fashionable on the English theatre.... The standard English
pronunciation now is _ferce_, _perce_, _terce_, and it is universal in
New England." He arraigns the fashionable world for pronouncing _heard_
as herd, instead of by its true sound of _heard_, in analogy with
_feared_. "_Beard_ is sometimes, but erroneously, pronounced _beerd_.
General practice, both in England and America, requires that _e_ should
be pronounced as in _were_, and I know of no rule opposed to the
practice." He objects to the innovation of _woond_ for _wound_, and
enters upon a long discussion of the pronunciation of _nature_, finally
falling back upon his countrymen's _natur_.
Webster inculcated his views on orthography and pronunciation upon all
occasions. He wrote, he lectured, he pressed home his doctrines upon
persons and assemblies. He was one of the first to perceive the
importance of getting his principles adopted in printing-houses. Long
after the time of which I am writing he continued to act as a missionary
in philology. The present printer of "Webster's Dictionary" remembers
that when he was a boy of thirteen, working at the case in Burlington,
Vermont, a little pale-faced man came into the office and handed him a
printed slip, saying, "My lad, when you use these words, please oblige
me by spelling them as here: _theater_, _center_," etc. It was Noah
Webster traveling about among the printing-offices, and persuading
people to spell as he did: a better illustration could not be found of
the reformer's sagacity, and his patient method of effecting his
purpose.
His contemporaries were obliged to take sides when so aggressive a
spirit was among them. His doctrines were discussed in society and in
print. The [Greek: Ph B K] Society at Yale debated upon the adoption of
Webster's orthography, deciding in 1792 in favor of it, and reversing
their decision in 1794. Webster, by the way, was not unmindful of his
college. In 1790, as an encouragement to the study of the English
language, he made a foundation for an annual prize to be given to the
author of the composition which should be judged best by the faculty;
but the foundation does not appear to have been permanent. Just as later
he went to the printing-offices to secure a conformity to his
orthography, so in the earlier years he had directed his arguments at
the schools. In 1798 he published "A Letter to the Governors,
Instructors, and Trustees of the Universities, and other Seminaries of
Learning in the United States, on the Errors of English Grammar," from
which I have already quoted; and appeals to these men, who are to give
direction to the education of the young, to free themselves from a
slavish dependence upon England. "It will be honorable to us as a
nation, and more useful to our native tongue and to science, that we
examine the grounds of all rules and changes before we adopt them, and
reject all such as have not obvious propriety for their foundation or
utility for their object."
Webster's studies had thus been gravitating toward lexicography, and the
habits of mind which had been confirmed in his various pursuits were
precisely such as would serve best the purpose which he was gradually
forming. Dr. Chauncey Goodrich, in the memoir which is prefixed to the
Dictionary, remarks upon certain habits formed by him early in life,
which, becoming fixed principles, were of inestimable advantage in his
labors afterward. While his memory was tenacious, he was a great hoarder
of documents and marker of books; he was a careful methodizer of his
knowledge; he accustomed himself to a great variety and to unceasing
diligence in literary toil, and he was perpetually going back of facts
to the principles which he thought to underlie them.
It had been his custom for many years to jot down words which he met in
reading, and failed to find in dictionaries, and his labors upon the
Spelling-Book and Grammar had familiarized him with the task of
discriminating and defining, and had also disclosed to him the
deficiencies in that respect of current dictionaries. In 1806 he
published "A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language," in which
he announced, with an amusing foretaste of the larger claims of the
"Unabridged," that it contained five thousand more words than were to be
found in the best English compends. The Dictionary was rendered still
more useful by taking under its protection various tables of moneys and
weights, an official list of all the post-offices in the United States,
the number of inhabitants in the several States, and new and instructive
chronological tables. This, by the way, was the first occasion, I think,
when a word-book had departed from the customary boundaries of such
literature. I have been able to find but one precedent, Dyche and
Pardon's Dictionary, which, published a few years before, had contained
a supplementary list of persons and places, arranged alphabetically, and
apparently only as a museum of curiosities. This Dictionary had,
however, as a part of its regular text the several market towns in
England and Wales, with a general description of the places, their
situation, market-days, government, manufacture, number of
representatives sent to parliament, and distance from London. The
encyclopædic features of a dictionary are clearly of American addition,
growing out of the more general and exclusive use of the Dictionary as a
book of reference, and increased by the suggestions of competition. The
Dictionary proper was an enlargement of Entick, and in this preliminary
work Webster exercised very little authority in deviating from the
generally accepted orthography. The extent of his changes is indicated
in his preface:--
"In a few instances I have preferred the orthography of Newton,
Prideaux, Hook, Dryden, Whiston, etc., to that of Johnson, as being more
analogical and purely English, as _scepter_, _sepulcher_. In omitting
_u_ in _honour_ and a few words of that class I have pursued a common
practice in this country, authorized by the principle of uniformity and
by etymology, as well as by Ash's Dictionary. In omitting _k_ after _c_
[as in _public_] I have unequivocal propriety and the present usage for
my authorities. In a few words, modern writers are gradually purifying
the orthography from its corruptions. Thus, Edwards in his 'History of
the West Indies,' and Gregory in his 'Economy of Nature,' Pope, Hoole,
etc., restore _mold_ to its true spelling; and it would be no small
convenience to revive the etymological spelling of _aker_. Cullen, in
his translation of 'Clavigero,' follows Bacon and Davenport in the true
Saxon orthography of _drouth_; and the elegant Blackstone has corrected
the orthography of _nusance_ and _duchy_. The diphthongs in words
borrowed from the Latin language have gradually been sinking into
desuetude for a century; the few which remain I have expunged."
Dr. Johnson was the Magnus Apollo of lexicographers then, and his bulky
fame still casts a large shadow over the world of words. To rebel
against his autocratic rule at the beginning of this century was to
write one's self down an audacious and presuming sciolist. It is not
surprising, therefore, that Webster's criticism of Johnson in this
Dictionary and in other places should have exposed him to censure. Dr.
Ramsay of Charleston, a man of consequence in his day, wrote him that
the "prejudices against any American attempts to improve Dr. Johnson
were very strong in that city." The letter gave Webster his opportunity,
and he at once wrote and published his vigorous pamphlet respecting the
"Errors in Johnson's Dictionary and other Lexicons," which is addressed
to Dr. Ramsay. He takes a very lofty view of the situation. "The
intelligence," he writes, of this resentment in Charleston, "is not
wholly unexpected, for similar prejudices have been manifested in some
parts of the Northern States. A man who has read with slight attention
the history of nations, in their advances from barbarism to civilization
and science, cannot be surprised at the strength of prejudices long
established and never disturbed. Few centuries have elapsed since many
men lost their lives or their liberty by publishing NEW TRUTHS; and not
two centuries have past since Galileo was imprisoned by an
ecclesiastical court, for defending the truth of the Copernican System,
condemned to do penance for three years, and his book burnt at Rome, as
containing dangerous and damnable heresies. This example is cited as one
of a multitude which the history of man presents to our view; and if it
differs in _degree_, it accords in _principle_, with the case now before
the American public."
He then, after admitting the value of Johnson's ethical writings, but
distrusting his philological attainments, makes good his objections by
detailed specifications. He condemns the insertion of a multitude of
words which do not belong to the language, mentioning such unnaturalized
foreigners as _adversable_, _advesperate_, _adjugate_, _agriculation_,
_abstrude_, _injudicable_, _spicosity_, _crapulence_, _morigerous_,
_tenebrosity_, _balbucinate_, _illachrymable_, etc., words to which the
reader may, if he knows Latin, attach some sort of meaning, but which he
would be slow to introduce into his speech or writing. Then he condemns
Johnson's reference to writers of the seventeenth century who buried
their thoughts beneath cumbrous piles of Latinized English, as in such
passages as:--
"The intire or broken _compagination_ of the magnetical fabric;" "The
effects of their activity are not precipitously _abrupted_, but
gradually proceed to their cessations;" "Some have written rhetorically
and _concessively_, not controverting, but assuming, the question,
which, taken as granted, advantaged the illation;" "Its fluctuations are
but motions subservient, which winds, shelves, and every interjacency
_irregulates_;" passages given as illustrative of the words italicized.
"From a careful examination of this work, and its effect upon the
language, I am inclined to believe that Johnson's authority has
multiplied instead of reducing the number of corruptions in the English
language. Let any man of correct taste cast his eye on such words as
_denominable_, _opiniatry_, _ariolation_, _assation_, _ataraxy_,
_clancular_, _comminuible_, _conclusible_, _dedentition_,
_deuteroscopy_, _digladiation_, _dignotion_, _cubiculary_,
_discubitory_, _exolution_, _exeuterate_, _incompossible_,
_incompossibility_, _indigitate_, etc., and let him say whether a
dictionary which gives thousands of such terms as authorized English
words is a safe standard of writing.... In the 'English-Dutch
Dictionary' of Willcocke, we find the compiler has translated
_ariolation_, _clancular_, _denomiable_, _comminuible_, etc., into
Dutch. In Bailey's 'Fahrenkruger,' we see _digladiation_, _dignotion_,
_exeuterate_, etc., turned into German. These, or similar words, are by
Neuman translated into Spanish, and where the mischief ends it is
impossible to ascertain. And what must foreigners think of English taste
and erudition, when they are told that their dictionaries contain
thousands of such words which are not used by the English nation!"
Webster's next point is that Johnson has exceeded the bounds of
legitimate lexicography by the admission of vulgar and cant words. "It
may be alleged that it is the duty of a lexicographer to insert and
define all words found in English books: then such words as _fishify_,
_jackalent_, _parma-city_, _jiggumbob_, _conjobble_, _foutra_, etc., are
legitimate English words! Alas, had a native of the United States
introduced such vulgar words and offensive ribaldry into a similar
work, what columns of abuse would have issued from the Johnsonian
presses against the wretch who could thus sully his book and corrupt the
language!" He criticises the accuracy with which Johnson has
discriminated the different senses of the same word, and words nearly
synonymous. The illustrative quotations which bear so much of the praise
bestowed upon Johnson's Dictionary he declares to be one of the most
exceptionable features, both because no small number of the examples are
taken from authors who did not write the language with purity, and
because a still larger number throw no light upon the definitions, and
are frequently entirely unnecessary. He cites on this last point the
passages under the word _alley_, five in all, from Spenser, Bacon,
Milton, Dryden, and Pope. "Does any reader of English want all these
authorities to show the word to be legitimate? Far from it, nineteen
twentieths of all our words are so common that they require no proof at
all of legitimacy. Yet the example here given is by no means the most
exceptionable for the number of authorities cited. The author sometimes
offers thirty or forty lines to illustrate words which every man, woman,
and child understands as well as Johnson. Thirty-five lines of
exemplification under the word _froth_, for example, are just as useless
in explaining the word as would be the same number of lines from the
language of the Six Nations."
His final charge rests on the inaccuracy of the etymology. "As this has
been generally considered the least important part of a dictionary the
subject has been little investigated, and is very imperfectly
understood, even by men of science. Johnson scarcely entered the
threshold of the subject. He consulted chiefly Junius and Skinner; the
latter of whom was not possessed of learning adequate to the
investigation, and Junius, like Vossius, Scaliger, and most other
etymologists on the Continent, labored to deduce all languages from the
Greek. Hence these authors neglected the principal sources of
information, which were to be found only in the north of Europe, and in
the west of Ireland and Scotland. In another particular they all failed
of success; they never discovered some of the principal modes in which
the primitive radical words were combined to form the more modern
compounds. On this subject, therefore, almost _everything remains to be
done_.... I can assure the American public that the errors in Johnson's
Dictionary are ten times as numerous as they suppose; and that the
confidence now reposed in its accuracy is the greatest injury to
philology that now exists. I can assure them further that if any man,
whatever may be his abilities in other respects, should attempt to
compile a new dictionary, or amend Johnson's, without a profound
knowledge of etymology, he will unquestionably do as much harm as good."
A few years later Webster found an opportunity to attack the general
subject of lexicography from another side, and one intimately connected
with his special work. In 1816 Hon. John Pickering published "A
Vocabulary, or Collection of Words and Phrases which have been supposed
to be peculiar to the United States of America. To which is prefixed an
Essay on the Present State of the English Language in the United
States;" he had cited Webster upon various words and plainly was aiming
at him in his preface, when he declared that "in this country, as in
England, we have thirsty reformers and presumptuous sciolists, who would
unsettle the whole of our admirable language, for the purpose of making
it conform to their whimsical notions of propriety." Webster at once
addressed a letter in print to Pickering, and took up weapons, offensive
and defensive, with alacrity and confidence.
"This is a heavy accusation, Sir, from a gentleman of your talents,
liberality, and candor," he writes. "Sciolists we may have in
multitudes; but who are the men who would unsettle the whole of our
language? Can you name the men, or any of them, either in this country
or in England? Surely the finger of scorn ought to be pointed at the men
who are base enough to wish, and sottish enough to attempt, to unsettle
a whole language. I am confident, Sir, that deliberate reflection will
induce you to retract a charge so injurious to your fellow-citizens. It
certainly becomes you, and the character you maintain in society, to
learn the distinction between an attempt to find what the language is,
and an attempt to unsettle its principles. Whether you number me with
the thirsty reformers and presumptuous sciolists is a fact which I shall
take no pains to discover, nor, if known, would the fact give me the
smallest concern." Webster's hand trembles evidently with suppressed
anger, but he grows firmer as he goes on. "My studies have been
sometimes directed to philology, for the exclusive purpose of
ascertaining and unfolding its principles, correcting abuses, and
supplying the defect of rules in our elementary treatises. In the course
of my researches I have discovered a multitude of errors and false
principles, and numerous defects in such treatises; and as I have pushed
my inquiries probably much farther than any other man, I am satisfied
that the evidence I can lay before the public will convince you that
there is a rich mine of knowledge to be opened on this subject that your
English friends have never yet discovered." He takes up Pickering's
Vocabulary and rapidly criticises the several entries; he renews his
criticism upon Johnson and Lowth, but the most interesting part of the
pamphlet is his stout advocacy of the claim of Americans to make and
accept changes of language which grow out of their own conditions. The
English language was a common inheritance in England and America, and in
the necessary growth of a spoken language, Americans had equal right
with Englishmen to contribute to the growth; nay, that the American was
not a dialect of the English, but a variation; not a departure from a
standard existing in contemporary England, but an independent branch
from a common stock.
"New words should not be introduced into a copious language without
reason, nor contrary to its analogies. But a living language must keep
pace with improvements in knowledge, and with the multiplication of
ideas. Those who would entirely restrain the practice of using new words
seem not to consider that the limit they now prescribe would have been
as just and rational, a thousand or two thousand years ago, as it is at
this period. If it should be said, we have words enough to express all
our ideas, it may be truly answered, so had our ancestors when they left
the plains of Germany; or when they first crossed the Hellespont; or
when they left the soil of Persia. And what then? Would the words they
then used be now sufficient for our purpose. And who can define the
bounds of future improvement? Who will venture to allege that men have
not yet as much to learn as they have already learnt? The smallest
acquaintance with the history of human society and improvement ought to
silence the critics on this subject.
"Nor are we to believe that two nations inhabiting countries separated
by a wide ocean can preserve a perfect uniformity of language. If a
perfect uniformity cannot be produced or preserved in two distant
counties in England, how is this object to be effected between the
English in Great Britain and their descendants in America, India, or New
Holland? Let history answer the question. The art of printing,
interchange of books, and commercial intercourse will retard the
progress of mutation and diversities; but no human means can prevent
some changes, and the adaptation of language to diversities of condition
and improvement. The process of a living language is like the motion of
a broad river, which flows with a slow, silent, irresistible current."
He turns the tables on a writer who points out American barbarisms by
showing a number of English barbarisms which had been creeping into use,
and declares that in the use of language one nation as well as the other
will commit these errors, but he returns again and again to his position
that Americans in their use of language are not to wait passively upon
English authority.
"I venerate," he says, "the men and their writings; I venerate the
literature, the laws, the institutions, and the charities of the land of
my fathers. But I deprecate the effects of a blind acquiescence in the
opinions of men, and the passive reception of everything that comes from
a foreign press. My mind revolts at the reverence for foreign authors,
which stifles inquiry, restrains investigation, benumbs the vigor of the
intellectual faculties, subdues and debases the mind. I regret to see
the young Hercules of genius in America chained to his cradle.... I left
college with the same veneration for English writers, and the same
confidence in their opinions, which most of my countrymen now possess,
and I adopted their errors without examination. After many years of
research, I am compelled to withdraw much of that confidence, and to
look with astonishment upon the errors and false principles which they
have propagated; some of them of far more consequence than any which
have been mentioned in the preceding remarks. I wish to be on good terms
with the English; it is my interest and the interest of my
fellow-citizens to treat them as friends and brethren. But I will be
neither frowned nor ridiculed into error, and a servile imitation of
practices which I know or believe to be corrupt. I will examine subjects
for myself, and endeavor to find the truth, and to defend it, whether it
accords with English opinions or not. If I must measure swords with
their travelers and their reviewers, on the subject under consideration,
I shall not decline the combat. There is nothing which, in my opinion,
so debases the genius and character of my countrymen as the implicit
confidence they place in English authors, and their unhesitating
submission to their opinions, their derision, and their frowns. But I
trust the time will come when the English will be convinced that the
intellectual faculties of their descendants have not degenerated in
America; and that we can contend with them in LETTERS with as much
success as upon the OCEAN.
"I am not ignorant, Sir, of the narrowness of the sphere which I now
occupy. Secluded, in a great measure, from the world, with small means,
and no adventitious aid from men of science; with little patronage to
extend my influence, and powerful enmities to circumscribe it; what can
my efforts avail in attempting to counter-act a current of opinion? Yet
I am not accustomed to despondence. I have contributed in a small degree
to the instruction of at least four millions of the rising generation;
and it is not unreasonable to expect that a few seeds of improvement,
planted by my hand, may germinate and grow and ripen into valuable
fruit, when my remains shall be mingled with the dust." A note is added,
in which Webster with grave banter offers a suit of clothes to any
English or American reviewer who will find a man capable of explaining
the little word _by_, stating its primary signification and its true
sense in its several uses and applications.
The spirit with which Webster defended himself was a manly one, and it
is noticeable how years of fencing had improved the temper of his
weapons. He was keener in his thrusts, more dexterous and supple, and
comported himself in these disputes as a man entirely confident of his
position. It is not vanity which upholds a man working silently year
after year at a task ridiculed by his neighbors and denounced by his
enemies. Webster had something better to sustain him than an idle
self-conceit. He had the reserve of a high purpose, and an aim which had
been growing more clearly understood by himself, so that he could afford
to disregard the judgments of others. There was in the outward
circumstance of his life something which testifies to the sincerity and
worth of his purpose. He had withdrawn himself into the wilderness that
he might free himself from encumbrances in his work, and with his love
of society this was no light thing to do. His family went with him
reluctantly; but when did not an enthusiast drag with him to his own
light sacrifice the unwilling attendants of his life!
FOOTNOTES:
[13] In the possession of Rev. R. C. Waterston.
[14] "The first by Sir Thomas Smith, secretary of state to Queen
Elizabeth; another by Dr. Gill, a celebrated master of St. Paul's School
in London; another by Mr. Charles Butler, who went so far as to print
his book in his proposed orthography; several in the time of Charles the
first; and in the present age, Mr. Elphinstone has published a treatise
in a very ridiculous orthography."