THE

MONTHLY ANTHOLOGY,

FOR

APRIL, 1810.

I

FOR THE ANTHOLOGY.

WEBSTER'S GRAMMAR, DICTIONARY, &c. &c.

(Concluded from page 155.)

Do certainly regret that the length of this communication, and a fear of fatiguing the readers of the Anthology by a discussion in which many of them probably do not take an interest, compel me to restrain myself from a thorough investigation of all the prominent innovations upon grammar, which Mr. W. has attempted. What a field for animadversion does his chemico-comico-grammatico-philosophico NoMENCLATURE exhibit. I may perhaps on some future occasion investigate the propriety of this prostration of the terms of grammar; and the weight of Mr. Webster's argument that an alteration of the terms of grammar were necessary, because Lavoisier found those of chemistry defective, that "the "science of grammar is nearly in the condition in which "chemistry stood about thirty years ago," &c. &c.

But to be well qualified to write on this subject, I must institute my experiments, and examine all the transmutations which have ever been effected by the best constructed blowpipes of modern chemistry, and the crucibles of ancient alchymy. If I shall discover any remarkable similarity between Websterianism and chemistry, especially in the changes which certain combinations bring about; viz. if common English and the Saxon, mixed and triturated together, cause a violent fermentation, and produce a tertium quid, called the "American English," having no resemblance to either of its component parts, like the operation which takes place on the

union of an acid and an alkali, generating a neutral salt; if I perceive in my researches into alchymy a similitude between the philosopher's stone, of Paracelsus, and the Philosophical Grammar of Mr. Webster, that the objects of both have been to produce gold to their proprietors, and that both have failed in that object; if I discover any resemblance between those two great philosophers themselves, that both during their whole lives were at open hostility with their respectable contemporaries; and that both, as has been said of Paracelsus, "possessed a heated imagination full of the crudest notions ;" why then I will of course honestly and truly give the whole evidence; and the publick shall decide the great question.

I have dwelt more particularly upon Mr. Webster's arguments in regard to the articles, because he himself appears to consider them as his chef d'ouvre. They are indeed his strong holds into which he resorts, whenever he discharges his great guns at the established systems of grammar. The selection of the articles for his attack was perfectly in character. There were no other words which could admit of so much quibble.

I must not entirely quit the subject without just exhibiting a specimen of what I consider a very comical affair. On the subject of the articles in his Grammar, Mr. Webster presents us with the several definitions of Harris, Johnson, Lowth and Murray, all amounting to nearly the same thing; and of course according with the common definitions. At the close, Mr. Webster adds ; so great scholars write, and so their disciples copy.' To this succeeds a string of puns and conundrums, exhibiting much bitterness and little wit, about "broken heads" and "broken legs," intended for the purpose of ridiculing those writers and their followers. On reading this, I had the curiosity to look at a book printed not many years ago, entitled, " a Grammatical Institute of the English Language, grounded on the true Principles and Idioms of the Language," purporting to be the work of one "Noah Webster, jun. Esquire, attorney at law." Whether this was the same person, who now under the signature of Noah Webster, Esq. holds in such contempt the grammarians who conform to the common definition of the article, I must leave with others to determine. Perhaps it will prove that they are distinct persons, as their sentiments are so widely different. The junior Webster defines the article thus. "The article a is

placed before a noun to confine its signification to an individual thing; but it does not show which of the kind is meant, as a BOOK. A IS CALLED THE INDEFINITE ARTICLE"!! Whose head and legs should be broken next?

One other circumstance must not be omitted, because, as the matter now stands, unless it receives an explanation, which I am not enabled to give, it will involve the charge that a certain great innovator is either not very learned or not very honest. The writer in the Albany Gazette asserts that "Murray has introduced a number of new rules, not founded on the idioms of the English language. For instance, he has given a conjugation of verbs in the subjunctive mood, which is not authorized by a single good author. [how elegant.] The form of the verb if thou had, if thou shall, if thou will, is found no where, but in this grammar." In his letter in the Anthology, he says, "When Murray published his Grammar he introduced a series of tenses under the subjunctive mood, such as, if thou loved, if thou had loved, if thou shall or will love, to the amount of some pages, tenses which are certainly not English; and which, I presume, were never inserted in a similar work before, and which the author himself, in his Syntax, Rule 19, condemned as bad English; yet he suffered these forms to run through the eighth edition before he expunged them. Our American reviewers were as passive as lambs under this outrage on classick purity. We hear from them no censure, no clamour about innovation."

Besides the assertion in both of the above quotations, that such modes of expression are found in no other grammar than Murray's, it is also in the latter quotation implied, that Mr. Murray has been guilty of the ridiculous inconsistency of condemning in one part of his work what he approved in another.

Now, reader, behold a trick, which I think even Noah Webster will blush to see detected. I have been at the trouble of hunting up an old edition of Murray's Grammar, the sixth ; and what was my astonishment at discovering that instead of Mr. Murray's approving of that form of the subjunctive mood, he has made, immediately after these conjugations, the following remarks.

"In conformity to the general practice of grammarians, we have applied what is called the conjunctive termination to the second person singular of the verb, to love, and its auxiliaries, through all the tenses of the subjunctive; but whether this is

founded in strict propriety, and consonant to the usage of the best writers, may justly be doubted. Lowth appears to restrict it entirely to the present tense, and Priestley confines it to the present or imperfect tense. This difference of opinion amongst such writers may have contributed, in part, to that diversity of practice, so observable in the use of the subjunctive mood." Then follows a reference to a further discussion of the subject, to the 19th rule mentioned by Webster.

We now perceive that the implied charge of Murray's inconsistency is utterly devoid of truth. In no part of his grammar, which I have seen, does he give his own opinion in favour of those conjugations; but he expressly stated, immediately after the conjugation, that he introduced them "in conformity to the general practice of grammarians," that their propriety "may justly be doubted," and in further corroboration of his opinion, he refers us to the 19th. rule, which Mr. Webster would have us infer that he had accidentally discovered.

But leaving implied charges, let us examine the truth of a direct assertion. "This form of the verb is found no where but in Murray's Grammar." What was the condition of Mr. Webster's intellect when he made this assertion, it is not for me to say; but it is for me to say that perhaps half of the grammars now in use, either in whole or in part, do contain these conjugations. If Mr. Webster has paid so little attention to the subject of grammar as to be really ignorant of these facts, he is certainly unfit to write a grammar; and if he was really not ignorant of it, and at the same time could make such an assertion, as that I have cited, he is certainly a very bold man. Among the grammars and epitomes of grammar lying before me are the following, all of which have wholly, or in part, given these conjugations, and all are American productions, viz. those by Alexander, Bingham, Comly and Tich

enor.

There is one point which must not be entirely omitted when examining Mr. Webster's qualifications for the great task of reforming grammar and language. We have adverted to the probable consequences of suffering a man of his speculative turn to alter as suited his taste. These were on the presumption that he could, at least if he pleased, write common English. As it has never been my lot to see him accomplish this, I very much doubt whether he is capable of

doing it. I shall now open one of his books, and as the conjurer says, "you shall see what you shall see." We will take for the purpose of examination some of his critical writings. If he ever wrote correctly, he doubtless would in pieces of that description. I know of none of his productions which evinces more laboured criticism than his letter to Dr. Ramsay on the errours in Johnson's Dictionary. It is a very small duodecimo pamphlet of about 28 pages. As it was so very short, there was the less trouble in polishing the language. I have never read this pamphlet through; but have rapidly cast my eyes over several pages of it. On that occasion I remarked the following passages.

"Would the limits of this sketch permit it, I would give further illustrations by extracts from Glanville, Digby, Ayliffe, Peakam, L'Estrange, and other authors, which Johnson has cited as authorities." However contemptible our grammarian may consider these authors, I do not think he should carry his abuse so far as to class them under the neuter génder. Neither the sense nor the construction of the sentence will permit us to assign any other antecedent to "which," than "authors." It could not have been "extracts;" for we make, not "cite" extracts; and "extracts" is too far from the relative.

Again, "A use at which the ears of a correct scholar cannot but revolt." What sort of animals Mr. Webster's "scholars" are, I am unable to imagine. They certainly have much longer ears than those of the human species; else I do not see how they could easily "revolt."

"The last defect in Johnson's Dictionary which I shall notice, is the inaccuracy of the etymologies. As this has been generally considered as the least important part of the dictionary," &c. &c.

"No small part of his examples are taken from authors," &c. "A still larger portion of them throw not the smallest light," &c.

"A great part of them throw no light," &c.

On perusing these passages I naturally inferred that our grammarian had found by researches into the Saxon language, that the word "this" in the above quotation was correctly used in the singular; and that "are" and "throw" should be in the plural; but on proceeding a little farther I perused the