'In gratitude, therefore, to that public which has smiled so propitiously on his humble efforts to advance the cause of learning, he has endeavored, by unremitting attention to the improvement of his work, to render it as useful and as unexceptionable as his time and talents would permit.' Kirkham's Grammar, p. 7.
'Apprehensive, however, that no explanatory effort on his part, would shield him from the imputation of arrogance, by such as are blinded by self-interest, or by those who are wedded to the doctrines and opinions of his predecessors, with them he will not attempt a compromise; being, in a great measure, indifferent either to their praise or their censure. But with the candid he is willing to negotiate an amicable treaty, knowing that they are always ready to enter into it on honorable terms. In this negotiation, he asks nothing more than merely to rest the merits of his work on its practical utility.' Grammar p. 9.
'Content to be useful, instead of being brilliant, the writer of these pages has endeavored to shun the path of those whose aim appears to have been to dazzle, rather than to instruct.' Grammar, pp. 9 and 10.
'He has taken the liberty to think for himself, to investigate the subject critically and dispassionately, and to adopt such principles only as he deemed the least objectionable, and best calculated to effect the object he had in view.' Grammar, p. 10.
'Should these feeble efforts prove a saving of much time and expense to those young persons who may be disposed to pursue this science with avidity, by enabling them easily to acquire a critical knowledge of a branch of education so important and desirable, the author's fondest anticipations will be fully realized.' Grammar, p. 12.
'This flattering success, then, in his first essay in authorship, (alluding to my Grammar,) has encouraged the writer to adventure upon another branch of science, which, for some years past, has particularly engaged his attention. That he is capable of doing ample justice to his present subject, he has not the vanity to imagine; but, if his knowledge, drawn from observation, and experience in teaching elocution, enable him so to treat the science as to call the attention of some to its cultivation, and induce others more capable than himself to write upon it, he will thereby contribute his mite toward rescuing from neglect a branch of learning, which, in its important bearings upon the prosperity of the free citizens of this great republic, stands second to none; and thus, in the consciousness of having rendered a new service to his country, he will secure the reward of his highest ambition.' Kirkham's Elocution, p. 8.
These examples are sufficient to show, at least as far as my own observations are concerned, by what motives I have been actuated in the production of my works. That these motives are more pure or patriotic than those of other men who have written upon the same subjects, I have never pretended; for I am ready to acknowledge that I am subject to the weaknesses and infirmities common to human nature. But it is evident, that what has so greatly annoyed my antagonist is not the defects, but the success, of my Grammar.
In the following passage, our critic attempts to prove me grossly inconsistent with myself:
'Nothing can be more radically opposite,' says he, 'than are some of the elementary doctrines which this gentleman is now teaching; nothing more strangely inconsistent than are some of his declarations and professions. For instance: 'A consonant is a letter that cannot be perfectly sounded without the help of a vowel.' Kirkham's Grammar, p. 19. Again: 'A consonant is not only capable of being perfectly sounded without the help of a vowel, but, moreover, of forming, like a vowel, a separate syllable.' Kirkham's Elocution, p. 32. Once more: Upon his own rules, he comments thus, and comments truly, because he had written them badly: 'But some of these rules are foolish, trifling, and unimportant.' Elocution, p. 97. Again: 'Rules 10 and 11, rest on a sandy foundation. They appear not to be based upon the principles of the language.' Grammar, p. 59. These are but specimens of his own frequent testimony against himself!'
Now, in these instances, I should be fair game, were it not for the trifling difference, that I happen to present the doctrines and notions of other writers, and was my own, as stated by my learned censor. For example; in 1823, I introduced into my Grammar, as Mr. Murray's definition, the old notion, that 'A consonant is a letter that cannot be perfectly sounded without the help of a vowel.' But in 1834, I presented in my Elocution Dr. Rush's opposite opinion, and ascribed it to him. If, therefore, I had become fully satisfied that Dr. Rush is correct, it would behoove me to alter the definition as it stands in my Grammar; but, inasmuch as I am yet undecided on this point, I have not thought proper to do so.
Again, our critic says: 'Upon his own rules he comments thus:' 'But some of these rules are foolish,' etc. Now this assertion is utterly untrue; and, if Goold Brown read the whole passage from which he quotes, as he ought to have done, he knew he was asserting what was false. The rules in question, are introduced into the notes of my Elocution as John Walker's, and not as my own; as any one may see, by referring to that work. Similar remarks are applicable to 'Rules 10 and 11,' in my Grammar, both of which are taken from Murray; and this, too, Goold Brown as well knew, when he brought this charge of inconsistency against me, as he knew that in making it, he was libelling me. Really, when a critic is driven to such crooked shifts as these to make out his case, it needs no farther evidence to prove that it is a bad one.
But the foulest calumny in this tirade of abuses and misrepresentations, is contained in the following passage, in which, after having dealt out the most illiberal strictures, and the most unsparing condemnations and denunciations, upon my Grammar, he pretends to support his calumnies, by showing me up as a perfect ignoramus in the science of grammar:
'In general,' says he, 'his amendments of 'that eminent philologist,' (Mr. Murray,) are not more skilful than the following touch upon an eminent dramatist; and here, it is plain, he has mistaken two nouns for adjectives, and converted into bad English a beautiful passage, the sentiment of which is worthy of an author's recollection:
'The evil deed or deeds that men do, lives after them:
The good deed or deeds is oft interred with their bones.'Kirkham's Grammar, p. 75.'
In my Grammar, the phrase 'deed or deeds' is included in a bracket, and therefore, as every one acquainted with Cobb's Spelling-Book well knows, is not intended to be read as a part of the sentence, but as an explanatory clause. The couplet stands thus, in my book: