Dissertations on the English Language, with Notes, Historical and Critical; / to Which is Added, by Way of Appendix, an Essay on a Reformed Mode of Spelling, With Dr. Franklin's Arguments on that Subject

by Noah Webster

Yet this right is often assumed by individuals, who dictate to a nation the rules of speaking, with the same imperiousness as a tyrant gives laws to his vassals: And, strange as it may appear, even well bred people and scholars, often surrender their right of private judgement to these literary governors. The ipse dixit of a Johnson, a Garrick, or a Sheridan, has the force of law; and to contradict it, is rebellion. Ask the most of our learned men, how they would pronounce a word or compose a sentence, and they will immediately appeal to some favorite author whose decision is final. Thus distinguished eminence in a writer often becomes a passport for innumerable errors.

The whole evil originates in a fallacy. It is often supposed that certain great men are infallible, or that their practice constitutes custom and the rule of propriety. But on the contrary, any man, however learned, is liable to mistake; the most learned, as Michaelis observes, often teem with errors, and not unfrequently become attached to particular systems, and imperious in forcing them upon the world.[79] It is not the particular whim of such men, that constitutes custom; but the common practice of a nation, which is conformed to their general ideas of propriety. The pronunciation of keow, keind, drap, juty, natshur, &c. are neither right nor wrong, because they are approved or censured by particular men; nor because one is local in New England, another in the middle states, and the others are supported by the court and stage in London. They are wrong, because they are opposed to national practice; they are wrong, because they are arbitrary or careless changes of the true sounds of our letters; they are wrong, because they break in upon the regular construction of the language; they are wrong, because they render the pronunciation difficult both for natives and foreigners; they are wrong, because they make an invidious distinction between the polite and common pronunciation, or else oblige a nation to change their general customs, without presenting to their view one national advantage. These are important, they are permanent considerations; they are superior to the caprices of courts and theaters; they are reasons that are interwoven in the very structure of the language, or founded on the common law of the nation; and they are a living satire upon the licentiousness of modern speakers, who dare to slight their authority.

But let us examin whether the practice I am censuring is general or not; for if not, it cannot come within Horace's rule. If we may believe well informed gentlemen, it is not general even in Great Britain. I have been personally informed, and by gentlemen of education and abilities, one of whom was particular in his observation, that it is not general, even among the most eminent literary characters in London. It is less frequent in the interior counties, where the inhabitants still speak as the common people do in this country. And Kenrick speaks of it as an affectation in the metropolis which ought to be discountenanced.

But whatever may be the practice in England or Ireland, there are few in America who have embraced it, as it is explained in Sheridan's Dictionary. In the middle and southern states, there are a few, and those well bred people, who have gone far in attempting to imitate the fashion of the day.[80] Yet the body of the people, even in these states, remain as unfashionable as ever; and the eastern states generally adhere to their ancient custom of speaking, however vulgar it may be thought by their neighbors.[81] Suppose custom therefore to be the jus et norma, the rule of correct speaking, and in this country, it is directly opposed to the plan now under consideration.

As a nation, we have a very great interest in opposing the introduction of any plan of uniformity with the British language, even were the plan proposed perfectly unexceptionable. This point will be afterwards discussed more particularly; but I would observe here, that the author who has the most admirers and imitators in this country, has been censured in London, where his character is highly esteemed, and that too by men who are confessedly partial to his general plan. In the critical review of Sheridan's Dictionary, 1781, there are the following exceptions to his standard.

"Nevertheless our author must not be surprized if, in a matter, in its nature so delicate and difficult, as that concerning which he treats, a doubt should here and there arise, in the minds of the most candid critics, with regard to the propriety of his determinations. For instance, we would wish him to reconsider, whether, in the words which begin with super, such as superstition, supersede, he is right in directing them to be pronounced shooper. Whatever might be the case in Queen Anne's time, it doth not occur to us, that any one at present, above the lower ranks, speaks these words with the sound of sh; or that a good reason can be given, for their being thus sounded. Nay their being thus spoken is contrary to Mr. Sheridan's own rule; for he says that the letter s always preserves its own proper sound at the beginning of words."

Here we are informed by this gentleman's admirers, that, in some instances, he has imposed upon the world, as the standard of purity, a pronunciation which is not heard, except among the lower ranks of people, and directly opposed to his own rule. The reviewers might have extended their remarks to many other instances, in which he has deviated from general practice and from every rule of the language. Yet at the voice of this gentleman, many of the Americans are quitting their former practice, and running into errors with an eagerness bordering on infatuation.

Customs of the court and stage, it is confessed, rule without resistance in monarchies. But what have we to do with the customs of a foreign nation? Detached as we are from all the world, is it not possible to circumscribe the power of custom, and lay it, in some degree, under the influence of propriety? We are sensible that in foreign courts, a man's reputation may depend on a genteel bow, and his fortune may be lost by wearing an unfashionable coat. But have we advanced to that stage of corruption, that our highest ambition is to be as particular in fashions as other nations? In matters merely indifferent, like modes of dress, some degree of conformity to local custom is necessary;[82] but when this conformity requires a sacrifice of any principle of propriety or moral rectitude, singularity becomes an honorable testimony of an independent mind. A man of a great soul would sooner imitate the virtues of a cottage, than the vices of a court; and would deem it more honorable to gain one useful idea from the humble laborer, than to copy the vicious pronunciation of a splendid court, or become an adept in the licentious principles of a Rochester and a Littleton.

It will not be disputed that Sheridan and Scott have very faithfully published the present pronunciation of the English court and theater. But if we may consult the rules of our language and consider them as of any authority; if we may rely on the opinions of Kenrick and the reviewers; if we may credit the best informed people who have travelled in Great Britain, this practice is modern and local, and considered, by the judicious and impartial, even of the English nation, as a gross corruption of the pure pronunciation.

Such errors and innovations should not be imitated, because they are found in authors of reputation. The works of such authors should rather be considered as lights to prevent our falling upon the rocks of error. There is no more propriety in our imitating the practice of the English theater, because it is described by the celebrated Sheridan, than there is in introducing the manners of Rochester or the principles of Bolingbroke, because these were eminent characters; or than there is in copying the vices of a Shylock, a Lovelace, or a Richard III. because they are well described by the masterly pens of Shakespear and Richardson. So far as the correctness and propriety of speech are considered as important, it is of as much consequence to oppose the introduction of that practice in this country, as it is to resist the corruption of morals, which ever attends the wealthy and luxurious stage of national refinements.