Founding Grammars

by Rosemarie Ostler

  As Webster neared the end of his labors, he decided that to be thorough, he needed to consult certain books only available in Europe. After resettling Rebecca in New Haven, where she could be near her two married daughters, he set out for Paris in the summer of 1824, bringing along his twenty-two-year-old son William. Webster stayed in Paris for several weeks, but the French material proved disappointing. He and William moved on to England.

  By the end of September, Webster was writing Rebecca to say that they were in Cambridge, “settled very snugly at lodgings for the winter.” Besides a bedroom each, they rented a parlor. A room of about fifteen feet square, it was comfortably furnished with two tables, a sofa, and a few chairs. In this room, seated at one of the tables, Webster progressed steadily through the last pages of his great work, although he wrote to his wife that his right thumb was “almost exhausted.” Early in the new year, he finished writing the entry for zygomatic and laid down his pen. Later, he wrote a memorandum recalling the moment: “I finished writing my Dictionary in January 1825.… When I had come to the last word, I was seized with a trembling which made it somewhat difficult to hold my pen steady for writing.… I summoned the strength to finish the last word, and then walking about the room a few minutes, I recovered.”36

  When Noah Webster finished An American Dictionary of the English Language he was sixty-six years old. He had been writing about American English for the past forty-two years. All the issues he cared about were packed into his dictionary’s two hefty volumes—linguistic patriotism, etymology, natural grammar rules, simplified spelling. Even his religious beliefs were incorporated. He based his language origins essay on the biblical book of Genesis. He also omitted what he termed “vulgar and obscene words,” even those included in most dictionaries of the time.37 (Fart is one example.)

  The dictionary was Webster’s final attempt to convince Americans to stake a claim in their own speech. He hoped they would use his book to take their language in a more informed direction. Over the years, as Webster had observed popular democracy in action, his political views had grown more conservative. He was friendlier toward the mother country and much less impressed with his fellow citizens. He strongly disapproved of Andrew Jackson, who would be their choice for president three years later. In spite of his new political outlook, he remained committed to American speech. As he explains in the dictionary’s preface, “It is not only important, but in a degree necessary, that the people of this country should have an American Dictionary of the English Language; for although the body of the language is the same as in England, and it is desirable to perpetuate that sameness, yet some differences must exist.”38

  Among Webster’s purposes in traveling to England had been the hope of discovering how much the two languages agreed on matters of pronunciation and grammar. Yet he realized that cultural and physical differences between the two countries—in forms of government, customs, terrain, plants, and animals—called for a specifically American dictionary. “No person in this country will be satisfied with the English definitions of congress, senate, and assembly,” he says.

  Some people were concerned that by including American word inventions, Webster was allowing coarse, low-class language into the dictionary. He didn’t see it that way. As he wrote to his brother-in-law while in the planning stages, “Americanisms must be admitted, for they form an essential part of our language.” Anyway, he thinks they’re entirely legitimate. “What is the difference, in point of authenticity, between respectable American usage and respectable English usage?” he demands staunchly.39

  Webster’s American Dictionary was a monumental achievement. It listed seventy thousand words, including twelve thousand not recorded elsewhere. Webster had also added between thirty thousand and forty thousand new definitions.40 He mined the American language for “words of common use.” These included new verbs—revolutionize, electioneer—and new items—parachute, safety-valve. He added or updated dozens of scientific and legal words. He also added religious definitions to words not normally in that category. Among the definitions of life, for instance, is “eternal happiness in heaven.”

  Once again, however, Webster discovered that imposing scholarship was not enough to make a book desirable to publishers—or to the public. After trying unsuccessfully to find a London publisher, Webster returned home to New Haven to search for one there. After several months, Sherman Converse, editor of the New Haven Connecticut Journal, agreed to handle the publishing and printing. Then began the long, fraught process of proofreading and revision. Webster himself carried out this task to a large extent, although he hired other readers for some of the material. Not until November of 1828 was the book—in two enormous volumes—at long last printed. Webster had just turned seventy. The first edition consisted of 2,500 copies, priced at $20. Soon afterward, Webster found a London publisher who printed 3,000 copies for the English market, after removing the word American from the title.

  The book’s early reception was promising. The Western Recorder, announcing the book shortly after it appeared, does not offer a review but says, “This work is spoken of in the highest terms.” Most reviewers agreed that the number of new words was impressive. “The vocabulary is enlarged by the addition of many thousand words … not found in other dictionaries,” says one, and furthermore, these are words “for the precise meaning of which the general reader is most frequently at a loss.” Yet another reviewer remarks, “Dr. Webster, besides adding very largely to the number of definitions, has given to them, in great degree, the precision of modern science.”41

  The North American Review devotes forty-eight pages to a well-informed examination of the dictionary. The reviewer uses more than half of those pages to describe Webster’s etymological discoveries, taking issue with some of his conclusions, but generally approving his methods. He praises Webster’s new definitions as covering “the most common and important senses of words, according to the best usage of the present day.” The new scientific and technical words also add to the dictionary’s value. He even approves of the inserted Philosophical and Practical Grammar, believing that it contains “many improvements on those which preceded it.”

  The reviewer ends by predicting that “the author’s labors, in the cause of language of his country” will soon produce a good effect on how Americans use their native tongue. “It will be seen in the better understanding of authors,” he says, and “in the more correct use of words.” The dictionary will also, he hopes, add to the respect “with which the author will be viewed, for his talents, learning, and persevering industry.”42 These predictions went largely unfulfilled.

  Many prominent men did admire the book. Webster wrote to his son-in-law William Fowler in 1829, “My great book seems to command a good deal of attention. Mr. Quincy, now president of Harvard … assures me the book will be well reviewed.… It is considered as a national work.”43

  Others were unwilling to accept its quirks. Webster’s innovative spellings were the biggest stumbling block. Most people agreed with his dropping the u from words like honour and colour, and the k from words like publick and musick. These practices were already widespread. They were less happy with oddities like bridegoom for bridegroom and ieland for island.

  Webster’s most persistent critic was a rival spelling-book author named Lyman Cobb. Cobb wrote several articles challenging Webster’s spellings, eventually bundling his criticisms into a fifty-six-page pamphlet called A Critical Review of the Orthography of Dr. Webster’s Series of Books for Systematick Instruction in the English Language. Cobb’s use of a final k to spell Systematick makes his attitude plain.

  Cobb’s main complaint is that Webster’s claim to have made English spelling more uniform is false. He examines the spellers and dictionaries minutely, one at a time, to uncover Webster’s inconsistencies. Webster has dropped the k from garlick and physick, but not from lock and attack. He omits the u from labour and vigour, but keeps them in curious and generous. Cobb argues that Webster has not fo
llowed his own rules, and that those rules are misguided anyway. The pamphlet ends with a several-page table that compares selected words across Webster’s books and shows how the spellings have changed from one place to the other.

  Cobb attacked Webster personally as well as intellectually. In the introduction, he derides the notion that Webster’s dictionary provides Americans with a new standard—if such a thing is even necessary. He suggests that the only reason any of Webster’s books sell at all is because he and his publishers relentlessly market them. As for the new dictionary, it has gained undeserved recognition because “the most unwearied pains have been taken by Mr. Webster and his friends to puff it in newspapers and periodicals.” Also, “by personally applying to Members of Congress and others, he has been able to procure the recommendations of many men.”44

  Cobb had a personal motive for his aggrieved tone. Webster and his publishers had responded to his previous attacks by publicly pointing out that Cobb was himself a textbook writer with a vested interest in seeing Webster’s books fail. Cobb was not alone, however, in concluding that Webster’s spelling reforms left something to be desired. Many people with no axe to grind nonetheless felt that Webster’s ideas were too radical. Another problem for the dictionary was its price. At $20—about $500 in modern purchasing power—it was just too expensive for most households. Nearly a decade would pass before the last of the 2,500 American copies sold. Once again, Webster’s hard work had not paid off as he hoped. He decided that he needed to bring out a cheaper, more compact edition.

  In 1829 Webster consulted his publisher, Sherman Converse, about producing an abridged edition of the American Dictionary. After two decades of unremitting hard work on the dictionary, Webster felt unequal to editing it himself. Converse hired a Yale graduate named Joseph Worcester to undertake the task. Worcester had recently edited an American version of Samuel Johnson’s pioneering 1755 dictionary. Also, unbeknownst to Webster, he was compiling a dictionary of his own that would compete with Webster’s when it appeared a year later.

  To supervise Worcester’s work, Webster enlisted his son-in-law Chauncey Goodrich. Goodrich, married to Webster’s daughter Julia, was a professor of rhetoric at Yale. He was also an astute businessman. Goodrich realized that the dictionary’s unconventional spellings, convoluted etymologies, and other idiosyncratic features made it less appealing to the general public than it could have been. A more standardized volume would be bound to sell much better.

  Goodrich’s solution was to ruthlessly strip the dictionary of nearly everything that made it unique. Since the main point of the abridgment was to produce a shorter book, he naturally cut extraneous items like the essay on language origins and the condensed Philosophical and Practical Grammar. Then, without consulting his father-in-law, Goodrich normalized most of the spellings. As the preface euphemistically explains, in “disputed” cases “the old orthography takes the lead.”45 Some variant word pairs, like acre and aker, are listed under both spellings. Many others, like bridegoom and bridegroom, are listed only under the orthodox spelling, with Webster’s version of the word relegated to a parenthesis.

  Worcester, who had strong views on what dictionaries should look like, added his own spin to what were already significant revisions. He rewrote definitions and deleted pronunciation advice that he considered questionable. He also contributed new material. “The vocabulary has been considerably enlarged,” the preface tells readers. Some of the words that Worcester added were suggested by Webster himself, but most came from Worcester’s edited version of Johnson’s dictionary.

  When the abridged dictionary came out and Webster realized how severely Goodrich had pruned it, he was furious. The spelling and pronunciation changes made it appear that Webster no longer believed in his own reforms. The etymologies that he had labored over so meticulously were drastically reduced, and his grammar guidelines completely erased. The book also included many words and definitions that Webster himself hadn’t written.

  He was so distressed over the changes that he rushed to dissociate himself from the book. Shortly after it appeared, he sold the copyright to Goodrich. Then he cut the Goodriches out of his will, saying they would benefit enough from money made on the abridgment. Whether or not Webster genuinely believed this prediction, it would turn out to be true. Priced at $6, the abridged dictionary sold briskly from the first. It was not the dictionary that Webster envisioned, but it was more compatible with American tastes.

  * * *

  Webster lived another fifteen years after publishing his great dictionary. He remained healthy and energetic. An acquaintance meeting him in 1840, when he was eighty-one, noted that “his mind was strong, clear and active as ever; his conversation was full of … spirit and vivacity.”46 Webster’s activities included a trip to Washington, D.C., in 1830 to speak before Congress in favor of a bill extending the term of copyright to twenty-eight years. The bill passed shortly afterward. While he was there, he lobbied to get his dictionary accepted as the country’s standard for spelling.

  Webster continued writing until the last, but not about grammar. After the fiasco of the abridgment, he did his own editing to create a short dictionary for schools. Several years later, he embarked on an update of the original dictionary, mortgaging his house to finance the publication, much to his family’s dismay. The second edition appeared in 1841. In 1843 he published his final book, a collection of his articles on political subjects. Webster died in April of that year, at the age of eighty-four.

  Shortly after his death, the publishers George and Charles Merriam bought the copyright to Webster’s original dictionary, hiring Goodrich to make revisions for a new edition. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, now denuded of all unorthodox features, appeared in 1847. The Merriam brothers’ dictionary would be the version that made Webster’s name lastingly famous. The Merriams soon outmarketed rival dictionaries, including Joseph Worcester’s, which had been in fierce competition with Webster’s since its appearance in 1830. Many educators preferred Worcester’s conservative approach to spelling and pronunciation. Nonetheless, by the 1850s, the Merriams had cornered the school dictionary market and were on their way to dominating the home market.

  While Webster’s name was becoming synonymous with dictionaries, his writings on American usage and grammar were forgotten. By the time of his death, his grammar books had virtually disappeared. Fowle’s claim that he could not find a copy of A Philosophical and Practical Grammar anywhere in Boston in the 1820s suggests that the demand for it by then was almost nil. Dissertations was never reprinted. The Institute, Part II had long ago been superseded, as Webster himself noted, by Murray and others.

  The grammar books of Fowle and his fellow reformers also failed. Fowle continued teaching and writing until 1860, when he retired and moved to the Massachusetts countryside. He died in 1865, aged sixty-nine. Fowle never abandoned his grammatical principles. In 1842 he brought out Common School Grammar, intended for preparatory schools. In the preface he makes it clear that he hasn’t repented of his earlier views. He still believes that writers like Lowth and Murray “sought to adapt our grammar to other languages … and to destroy every feature of it that can be called natural.”47 He’s still hoping that his book will provide an antidote.

  By the time Fowle died, Lindley Murray’s popularity was also waning. The books that replaced his, however, were nothing like Fowle’s. They were much closer to Murray’s. One of the more popular volumes was The Principles of English Grammar by Rev. Peter Bullions. Reverend Bullions announces in the preface that the aim of his book is to improve on Murray’s English Grammar—“correcting what is erroneous,… compressing what is prolix, elucidating what is obscure.” He has no thought of developing any original theories. “Utility, not novelty” is his goal and Murray is still the benchmark.48

  Bullions rephrases and reorganizes, but all the familiar rules and definitions remain intact. He’s content to list the same parts of speech as Murray offered. He tells students, as Murra
y did, that “double comparatives and superlatives are improper.” He agrees that “one negative destroys another, or is equivalent to an affirmative,” and that “a sentence should not be concluded with a preposition.” It is me is still wrong. The rules of composition that Bullions lays out—purity, propriety, and precision—are the same ones that Murray suggested several decades earlier.49

  By the mid-nineteenth century, contention over grammatical issues was entering a new phase. Arguments over usage and style would shift to the public sphere and be aimed not at learners, but at educated adults. A new type of expert would enter the scene—the verbal critic.

  Verbal critics were not so much grammarians as guardians of elegant upper-class speech. While earlier grammarians had aimed to educate upwardly aspiring Americans, verbal critics concentrated on making distinctions between the ladies and gentlemen in the top echelons and everyone else. These arbiters of proper speech did not abandon the grammatical strictures of Lowth and Murray—they simply added another layer of refinement. They didn’t really need to repeat the basic rules found in eighteenth-century grammar books. These had by now become an uncontroversial fact of American life.

  5.

  Grammar and Gentility