10
This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham] On: 11 November 2014, At: 06:16 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK The Review of Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gred19 “OLD BLUEBACK”: NOAH WEBSTER'S SPELLER Alice Denham Published online: 09 Jul 2006. To cite this article: Alice Denham (1983) “OLD BLUEBACK”: NOAH WEBSTER'S SPELLER, The Review of Education, 9:2, 177-184, DOI: 10.1080/0098559830090216 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0098559830090216 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

“OLD BLUE‐BACK”: NOAH WEBSTER'S SPELLER

  • Upload
    alice

  • View
    216

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham]On: 11 November 2014, At: 06:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Review of EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gred19

“OLD BLUE‐BACK”: NOAHWEBSTER'S SPELLERAlice DenhamPublished online: 09 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Alice Denham (1983) “OLD BLUE‐BACK”: NOAH WEBSTER'S SPELLER, TheReview of Education, 9:2, 177-184, DOI: 10.1080/0098559830090216

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0098559830090216

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

6:16

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

"OLD BLUE-BACK":NOAH WEBSTER'S SPELLER

Alice Denham

E. Jennifer Monaghan. A Common Heri-tage: Noah Webster's Blue-Back Speller.Hamden, Connecticut: Archon Books/ShoeString Press, 1983. 304 pp. $22.50.

Most Americans can identify McGuffey'sreaders as the quaint books that taught ourgreat-grandmothers to read. During the1800s, the books did indeed teach childrenreading, moral precepts, and a good dealmore. It surprised me, however, to learnthat 150,000 of them were sold in 1982.1That figure may not seem like many bookscompared with the 122 million copies dis-tributed between 1836 and the 1920s, but itis still an impressive statistic.

Marvin Stone called the McGuffey re-vival a "boomlet" and a phenomenon thattells us something about our times. Hiseditorial in U.S. News explained McGuffey'sreturn to the book market and to classroomsas a reflection of our yearning for a simplerlife and the desire to promote honesty,

industry, and more responsible and humanebehavior.2 The primary objective ofMcGuffey's books, though, was to teachreading skill, and they continue to performin that role, even into the 1980s. Someschool districts have adopted the readers assupplementary textbooks, and teachers re-port some gratifying successes: studentslike the books, take them home, and actual-ly improve their reading skills.

Noah Webster's spellers may not be quiteas well known as McGuffey's EclecticReader, but data on Webster's spellingbooks are almost as impressive as are thoseon the readers. Seventy million copies ofThe American Spelling Book have beensold since its original publication in 1783and two different editions are still in print.Only two books can lay claim to surpassingWebster's spelling book in the total numberof copies sold in the United States: the Bibleand the various editions of McGuffey's.

Now E. Jennifer Monaghan's A Common

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

6:16

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

178 The Review of Education / Spring 1983

Heritage traces the history of the blue-backspeller during Webster's lifetime and showswhy it gained an unprecedented popularityin the history of American textbook pub-lishing. Monaghan emphasizes that theimportance of the book rests more on itsfunction and content than merely on salesfigures. Its function, according to Monaghan,was more important than the title suggests.Webster's spellers taught children to readin early America. Monaghan shows thatthey were called "spellers" because spellingthen was the method children used to learnto read. In other words, early Americanchildren learned spelling in order to read; itwas only after the 1830s that they learnedspelling for spelling's sake. The spelling-for-reading approach, better known to us asthe "alphabet method," was then the standardway to teach beginning reading on bothsides of the Atlantic. Children learning toread were taught to spell words out, insyllables, in order to pronounce them. A"reader"—a type of textbook that did noteven exist until Noah Webster wrote thefirst one in 1785—was for children whocould already read. Not until WilliamHolmes McGuffey published the first twovolumes of his Eclectic Reader in 1836 didAmerican children start learning how toread from a "reader." And for severaldecades after the appearance of theMcGuffey readers, Webster's speller wasstill selling at least a million copies a yearfor the G. & C. Merriam Company ofSpringfield, Massachusetts.

Jennifer Monaghan is fortunately a goodstoryteller, because A Common Heritagegrew out of her 1980 doctoral dissertation3

and still shows some signs of its other life.Her book thereby suffers a bit, but notmuch, because the story she tells is a com-pelling one that she tells very well andabout as smoothly as such a story can betold without taking a strictly chronological

approach. Chapter 1 covers Webster's earlyyears, 1758 to 1783. Chapter 2 continues thestory of his speller, which was the first partof his three-volume work with the unwieldytitle of A Grammatical Institute of theEnglish Language and the only one of thethree parts (the other two were a reader anda grammar) that was destined to be acontinuing bestseller. Subsequent chaptersdetail Webster's family and financial prob-lems, Webster as a businessman and tire-less promoter of the speller, the develop-ment of An American Dictionary of theEnglish Language (along with the linguis-tic and orthographic thinking that lay be-hind his work), the revised speller of 1829,the story of his son William Webster'sefforts on his father's behalf in the Westernmarkets, Noah Webster's later years, anepilogue on the publication of the spellerafter Webster's death in 1843 (along withthe changes in its role and its sales), and aconclusion in which Monaghan sums upthings and points out their significance.Following those first 196 pages of text are abibliographic essay-style note on her sources,a list of abbreviations used in the sourcenotes, and nine appendixes listing suchthings as the various editions of the books,Webster's account-book records of thenumber of copies of the books licensed from1805 through 1843, and the pronunciationkeys used in the spellers. Following theappendixes are the overly copious and fartoo numerous notes (50 pages of them andfar too many substantive ones), a 13-pagebibliography, and an index that was quiteadequate for tracing the handful of items onwhich I wanted to "backtrack."

It would be difficult to overestimate theimportance of Webster's speller in earlyAmerican education, and Monaghan's maincontribution may lie in her thorough pre-sentation of evidence that makes that con-clusion inescapable. Any child who attended

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

6:16

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

DENHAM /"Old Blue Back": Noah Webster's Speller 179

school after 1760 would have used a spell-ing book as his or her first instructionaltext. Thomas Dilworth's spelling booktitled A New Guide to the English Tonguewas the most popular predecessor of Web-ster's speller. So Dilworth's spelling bookwas the touchstone book to which everyone,whether consciously or not, compared Web-ster's speller. Some critics perceived Websteras too unoriginal and dependent on Dil-worth; others saw Webster as too originaland innovative—in other words, too dif-ferent from the Dilworth to which they wereaccustomed.

Spelling books in colonial America had aset format. First they introduced all theletters of the alphabet in both roman anditalic print. Then came the "syllabarium":ab, eb, ib, ob, ub (the short vowels) and ba,be, bi, bo, bu (the long vowels), followed bywords of one syllable, two, three, and soforth. The words were presented in a"table," an alphabetical list of words, eachof which was followed by a "lesson," inwhich some kind of connected prose woulduse the words that had appeared in thepreceding table. Under the alphabet methodof instruction, children were expected tospell aloud each word of the lesson. Drop-ping the crutch of spelling was consideredthe hallmark of fluent reading (p. 33).

Monaghan's summary of the content ofthe speller was interesting (and also in-complete) enough to send me to the libraryto try to find a copy of it. I did find afacsimile edition of the 1829 revision of thebook, which I examined with great interest.The purpose—spelling for the sake of read-ing—is clearly evident, although the 1829edition was a major revision, incorporatingsignificant changes (Monaghan deals withthe revision in a later chapter).

The alphabet method of teaching childrento read did not completely dominate read-ing instruction beyond Webster's lifetime,

though it, unfortunately, lives on in theform of such approaches as "syntheticphonics." Webster worked actively atvarious writing and publishing projectsand lived until 1843, while the McGuffeyreaders, which after the 1830s were to rele-gate Webster's speller to its other functionof teaching pupils to spell, were publishedin 1836.

A more lasting contribution of Webster'sspeller was his change in the then usualmethod of dividing syllables. Dilworth, andother spelling book authors before him, hadfollowed the precept that every syllableshould begin with a consonant or severalconsonants. This practice violated anothercardinal principle: that the vowel in anopen syllable must be a long vowel. Dil-worth's solution to this problem had been toadd the marking (") after the offendingvowels; ha"bit and clu"ster resulted.Webster, critical of Dilworth's syllabica-tion, remarked that "the only reason wedivide syllables for children is to lead themto the proper pronunciation of words" (p.36), and then proceeded to divide suchwords as hab it and clus ter. Unknown toWebster, however, Monaghan found that aScottish spelling book author namedWilliam Perry already had made the samereform.

The principal rule on which Websterbased his change in the traditional sylla-bication is of great interest to me, because itis still the basis of some of the work divi-sions in contemporary Webster's diction-aries (which, incidentally, are still publishedby the G. & C. Merriam Company). Aseditor of a scholarly journal, I frequentlyfind some words divided incorrectly at theright margin after an issue is set in type.Proj-ect (as a noun), for instance, mayappear as pro-ject (the correct division forthe verb form according to Webster's NewCollegiate, which is an outgrowth of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

6:16

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

180 The Review of Education / Spring 1983

Webster's Third New International Dic-tionary). After several years of editorialexperience, I finally figured out that Web-ster's long-vowel, short-vowel principle wasone of the reasons I had to look up so manyincorrectly syllabified words.

Monaghan may be misleading, however,when she asserts that Webster's syllabi-cation "would become a permanent featureof the spelling book and dictionary land-scape on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean"(p. 36). After the success of his speller,Webster did indeed follow many of hisearlier syllabication principles in his dic-tionaries. Some—but by no means all—American lexicographers followed his lead.That fact becomes only too clear to anyonewho examines one of the tiny "wordlist"books that secretaries frequently have, orsome other dictionary, such as The Amer-ican Heritage Dictionary or Random HouseDictionary. The majority of American lex-icographers do not necessarily follow theprinciples embodied in Webster's Third,many of which, of course, can be tracedback to his work with the speller. Moreover,I believe that most British lexicographersfollow etymological rather than phonologi-cal principles in syllabifying words. (Pho-nology clearly was Webster's central con-sideration, however.) These matters, onwhich Monaghan may be a bit misleading,in no way diminish her main points: thatWebster's major orthographic reforms sur-vive to this day, and his overall influencewas enormous.

Webster viewed his spelling book as animportant tool in America's struggle forcultural independence from Great Britain.He envisioned a "federal language," whichthe speller would help to make uniformthroughout the United States. The federallanguage would be distinctly different fromthe tongue of the mother country. Webster'sclaim that his work would influence pro-

nunciation was, according to Monaghan,not disputed by his contemporaries, thoughreviewers did criticize him for some of thespecific innovations in the speller. Histreatment of words ending in -sion or -tion,for example, provoked particularly harshcriticism. Webster made those one syllable,reflecting the conversational speech of histime instead of the prosody of psalm sing-ing, which other spelling book authorsfollowed in making -sion and -tion twosyllables.

Another of Webster's innovations turnedout to be a significant and lasting con-tribution to spelling instruction. Dilworthhad grouped together in his tables all wordsthat were spelled alike, whether or not theywere pronounced alike. Webster, by con-trast, listed words in his tables according totheir pronunciation. This feature, carriedout with Webster's characteristic thorough-ness, produced a full and accurate attemptto describe, categorize, and compare thephonemic values that different letters indi-cated in American English.

He first described each letter of thealphabet, giving a word as an example ofthe sound he was focusing on. For instance:

G is also hard before a, o, u as in gat,got, gum; but sometimes hard andsometimes soft before e, i, y.His only an aspiration or breathingand is often silent, as in hour. (p. 41).Webster next devised indices (a system of

numerical superscripts) to the pronuncia-tion of vowels. Long vowels all had thesuperscript 1, short vowels had superscript2, and the vowel sound in bald, fall, and lawhad 3, and so forth, for a total of 10superscripts. Additionally, Webster printedall silent letters in italics. Monaghan re-produces (on p. 41) the beginning ofWebster's twelfth table, as shown below.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

6:16

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

DENHAM / "Old Blue Back": Noah Webster's Speller 181

1Bepeaseateayeafleakey

9fungunrunsontonwonone*

1flycryskyliedieeyebuy

8nowcowhowbowmowsowvow

3lawnawrawsawpawawegnaw

10baydayhaylaymaypaysay

*(A footnote for the asterisk reads:"Pronounced wun") (p. 41)

Such items from the speller make it crystalclear why Webster's analysis of the rela-tionship between letters and sounds wassuch a major contribution.

Of all of Webster's improvements onDilworth's speller, the Americanization ofthe towns and other place names wasapparently the most readily accepted.Monaghan found no published criticism ofthat change at all. The publication ofWebster's grammar as a separate volumealso was not challenged (though therewould be many criticisms of the content ofthe grammar when it was published in1784).

The contents of Webster's tiny speller areof interest to the contemporary educator.The first and second editions were set invery small type, which Webster replacedwith pica size type in the third and fourtheditions. There were no illustrations orfables in the 120 pages. After a lengthyintroduction, the roman and italic alpha-bets, and the syllabarium, the text pre-sented one-syllable words of three and fourletters, words of two syllables, and so forth.Table XI dealt with polysyllabic wordshaving secondary stress (which he called a"half accent"). Other tables showed suchmatters as voiced and unvoiced th (gather,faithful), silent ue as in vague, wordsending with -ow (follow), those in which chis pronounced like k, words ending in -sion,and words in which i is to be pronounced asy {filial). The remaining tables contained

proper names, irregular words, homo-phones, and the aforementioned placenames in the United States.

Not until Table XXXVII, for whichWebster adapted Dilworth's famous firstlesson, is the child given any readingmatter. Until the major revision of 1829, theadaptation of Dilworth's first lesson wasone of the constants in the numerous edi-tions of the speller. It began:

No man may put off the law of God.My job is in his law all the day.

Monaghan reports that generations ofadults would remember those lines (and thefollowing 10 or so) with a kind of awe yearsafter they were in school.

Webster's contribution to American edu-cation was not limited to the speller, how-ever, or to the speller, grammar, and readerthat made up A Grammatical Institute ofthe English Language. He also wroteseveral other works, including a two-volume book titled A Brief History of Epi-demic and Pestilential Diseases. Althoughits underlying premise—that atmosphericturbulence causes epidemics—was incorrect,this work pioneered in its emphasis on thecompilation of data and in taking a his-torical approach. After the history of epi-demics was published in 1799, Websterturned his attention back to school-relatedmaterials and wrote three volumes onAmerican history and geography duringthe next six years. He added a fourthvolume in 1816, a textbook of biology. Theseries was titled "Elements of Useful Knowl-edge."

For years, Webster had been preparingfor the greatest and most exacting under-taking of his life, a new dictionary of theEnglish language. By 1804, he had reor-ganized the granting of contracts for pub-lishing the speller in such a way thatguaranteed him an income of at least apenny from each spelling book sold. Before

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

6:16

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

182 The Review of Education / Spring 1983

that time, he had awarded contracts for aflat fee that gave publishers the rights toprint or sell the spellers, or both, over acertain number of years. Webster's fore-sight in arranging the contracts so that hisincome was related to the number of copiessold, plus his untiring promotion of thespeller, enabled him to work on his dic-tionary for nearly 20 years. The role of thespeller in providing income for the familyfor such a long time is an important themeto which Monaghan returns several othertimes in the book—and she seems to becorrect in her assessment of its importance.

The spelling book was constantly under-going revision—the addition and deletionof illustrations, fables, and new content—and not surprisingly, errors sometimesslipped in. Webster appreciated the impor-tance of having all the editions of the bookuniform at any given time and insisted onconsistency among the various printers.When a new copyright agreement wasformulated in 1804, he wrote into the con-tract a stipulation that the printers shoulduse standing type instead of resetting eachprinting. By 1815, some of Webster's printersstarted using the new technology of stereo-typing, which involved casting a plate fromthe set type—an exceedingly importanttechnological advance in the history ofpublishing and one that enabled Webster toget very close to his goal of achievingperfect quality-control.

Webster was constantly watchful overthe fonts of type used and productiondetails such as bindings (he wanted thebooks to be sewed) as well as the internalquality of the work. One interesting prob-lem to be solved related to place names. Inthe 1700s, there was considerable disagree-ment about how to spell many of these, suchas Piscataway and Allegheny. Websterwould make a decision on such spellings,often after considerable research. His

innovations in syllabication meant thathe had to pay particular attention tothis aspect of the book, also. Similarly,because of his practice of indicating thepronunciation of certain letters by usingdifferent type (italic for silent letters, forinstance), he was preoccupied with type-faces.

Webster's unflagging attention to theproduction details seems all the more sur-prising in light of his energetic involvementwith promoting the speller. Using mostlyhis voluminous correspondence as sourcematerial, Monaghan spins out the story ofhis promotional efforts in a chapter titled"Webster the Businessman." The most in-teresting aspect of Webster's continuingpromotional campaign is that it would be acredit to a contemporary public relationsexpert. He used all the modern techniques:obtaining recommendations from experts,endorsements from users of the books (fre-quently principal teachers), and endorse-ments from famous people from all walks oflife; giving lectures; placing advertise-ments and notices in newspapers; givingaway free copies (sometimes donating themas prizes in school contests); and donatingincome from sales to worthy causes. He alsowaged vitriolic attacks on his competitors'books (letters to editors, news releases, andspeeches), which contemporary writersprobably would be less likely to do in such adirect manner. Only after 1816 did he giveup his involvement in the production andpromotion of the speller in order to devotean astonishing 12 years of full-time work tohis real magnum opus, the dictionary.

Three factors seem to have accounted forthe enormous success of Webster's speller.First, the merits of the speller itself wereconsiderable; Webster clearly had improvedon Dilworth's speller in content and tech-nical aspects. Although he adhered faith-fully to the alphabet method, Webster

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

6:16

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

DENHAM / "Old Blue Back": Noah Webster's Speller 183

"illuminated the relationship between let-ters and sounds with a clarity neverachieved before in a work for children" (p.200). Second, Webster's promotional efforts,his skill and zeal in selling the speller,clearly helped account for the book's suc-cess. Third, his single-mindedness in view-ing the speller as an instrument for foster-ing a truly American language was alsohelpful: "He spoke for a national languageat a critical moment in American historywhen the public was predisposed to hearhim" (p. 201).

Still another continuing theme inMonaghan's book is Webster's influence onAmerican copyright law. Two ideas towhich Monaghan returns several times arethe problem created by unlicensed salesand Webter's continuing efforts to ensurethe passage of adequate state and nationalcopyright laws. Monaghan concludes thatWebster's influence on copyright law prob-ably has been overstated by other scholarsand that he does not deserve the appellation"father of copyright." "Father of royalties,"on the other hand, may well be justified,because he clearly was the first Americanauthor to profit on such a large scale from aroyalty system (p. 208).

Webster's influence on American educa-tion and textbook publishing also was con-siderable, as Monaghan shows. Still an-other side of the book is its historical per-spective on American book publishing ingeneral.

In short, Monaghan's book is a finecontribution, which provides enough in-formation on the aforementioned themes tomake me wish for more material. ShoeString Press and its Archon Books imprintshould be commended for publishing such awork of very serious nonfiction for whichthere probably is not a large market. Alsocommendable are the careful copy editingand proofreading of the volume. Nowadays,

these labor-intensive and highly skilledpublishing roles are all too frequently ne-glected—so I was pleased to see that ShoeString Press evidently values accuracy andcare in the production process.

A Common Heritage is not withoutflaws, however. The 50 pages of notes in theback constitute a continuous annoyance.Most of the substantive notes should havebeen deleted or run into the text. Also, thesituation that occurs with note 21 in Chap-ter 3, and in several other places, should nothappen at all. Note 21 comes after infor-mation on Noah Webster and BenjaminFranklin's common interests, both menhaving published spelling books and hav-ing invented phonetic alphabets. The notetells us "See below, Chap. VI, Note 57,"which in turn tells us "Ibid., p., vi n," andthe source then turns out to be A Com-pendious Dictionary (by Webster). Thatkind of circuitous and uninformative cita-tion should not be permitted. As a reader ofthe book, I sometimes, as in that case,wanted to see evidence of a firmer editor'shand.

Similarly, the amateurish, tacky-lookingfigures that show the various editions of theprimers and spellers (appendixes on pages221-225) should have been redrawn withtypeset or rub-on lettering; hand-drawnlettering should be considered as imper-missible on figures as typewriter letteringis—or ought to be.

Such faults are not inconsequentialmatters because they sometimes impede theflow of information, make it difficult tocheck the author's sources, or spoil theotherwise good appearance and design ofthe book. The faults were not seriousenough to interfere greatly with my pleasurein reading the book, however, and I heartilyrecommend it for scholars in educationalhistory and foundations, professors of read-ing and language arts, students of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

6:16

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

184 The Review of Education / Spring 1983

history of reading and spelling instruction,and anyone interested in publishing andbookselling in early America.

NOTES1. Marvin Stone, "Ah, Good Old McGuffey," U.S.

News & World Report, 2 May 1983, p. 76.2. Ibid.3. E. Jennifer Monaghan, "Noah Webster's Speller,

1783-1843: Causes of Its Success as ReadingText." Doctoral dissertation, Yeshiva University,1980.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

6:16

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14