PE 
 
 1617 
 
 W4 
 
 G68 
 
 1856 
 
 MAIN 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
 SB ^0 D^3 
 
 \ 
 
\ 
 
 RECOMMENDATIONS 
 
 OF 
 
 Worcester's Dictionaries; 
 
 TO "WHICH IS PREFIXED 
 
 A REVIEW OF 
 WEBSTER'S SYSTEM OF ORTHOGRAPHY, 
 
 FROM THE 
 
 UNITED STATES DEMOCRATIC REVIEW, 
 
 FOR MARCH, 1856. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 HICKLING, SWAN AND BROWN 
 1856. 
 
 I 
 

 The JVew York Evening Post, in speaking of this Review, 
 
 " We do not remember to have seen elsewhere such full justice 
 done to Noah Webster's System of Orthography, under which 
 the English language has been corrupting for the last quarter of 
 a century, as in an article which we find in the last number of 
 the Democratic Review. We have copied it at length in our 
 columns, and would gladly contribute toward the expense of 
 having it read twice a year in every school house in the United 
 States, until every trace of Websterian spelling disappears from 
 the land. It is a melancholy evidence of the amount of mischief 
 one man of learning can do to society, that Webster's System 
 of Orthography is adopted and propagated by the largest pub- 
 lishing house ; through the columns of the most widely circu- 
 lated monthly magazine, and through one of the ablest and 
 most widely circulated newspapers in the United States. 
 
 " The article is attributed to the pen of Edward S. Gould, of 
 this city." 
 

 Jin American Dictionary of the English Language. By 
 Noah Webster. 1828-1853. 
 
 Some five and twenty years have elapsed since this dictionary was 
 first issued ; and, to its compiler and publishers, they have been years of 
 success. The time for producing the work was fortunate. Our lan- 
 guage had grown rapidly for a considerable period ; its vocabulary was 
 largely increased by the contributions of science, by numerous adoptions 
 from foreign tongues, and by an accumulation of derivatives from our own 
 established words ; so that a well-digested record of the progress of the 
 language was really needed. Besides, the parties in interest, following 
 the suggestion of the title page, had industriously cultivated an Esprit- 
 Americain in behalf of the book, which materially aided its favorable 
 reception. 
 
 If Webster had confined himself to recording such additions of words as 
 usage had sanctioned, to a careful sifting of etymologies, and to his own 
 valuable definitions, his work would have been as great an acquisition 
 to literature as to his individual profit. But, unfortunately, like many 
 other men, priding himself most on what he was least fitted for, and as- 
 suming a character for which few men are fitted, that of a reformer, 
 he added to his legitimate labor the gratuitous task of improving the 
 orthography of the language. 
 
 True, language, like all things human, is mutable. So long as it con- 
 tinues to be spoken, it will continue to change. From the days of John- 
 son to the days of "Webster, thousands of words had been added to the 
 common stock, and many variations had taken place in the meanings of 
 words. Spelling, also, had undergone some modifications. For example, 
 
 M180436 
 
the k of musick, phi/sick, etc., and the u of favour, honour, etc., had been 
 gradually dropped by good writers, though probably without good reason ; 
 and thus orthography, too, was in a state of progress. This was an un- 
 desirable state ; for it left the student without any absolute standard. 
 And if the student chose to refine upon the matter, he would soon see 
 that not only was there no absolute standard, but that the very principles 
 of our orthography its rules and its analogies were exceedingly 
 defective. 
 
 This is all true ; but it is also true that discovering defects is one thing, 
 curing them another ; and it is the fate of reformers, generally, to pro- 
 pose remedies that are worse than the disease. They can see that such 
 and such wheels of the machine have an eccentric motion ; but they can- 
 not see that cutting away what they deem superfluous flanges may disturb 
 other wheels that are regulated by that very eccentricity. A change 
 which the reformer thinks will promote simplicity, may happen to pro- 
 duce confusion ; and, unless he fully understands the machinery, he is 
 pretty certain to do mischief by meddling with it. 
 
 Tins would seem to be Webster's predicament. He aspired to a New- 
 tonian law that would reconcile all orthographical inconsistencies; he 
 produced certain arbitrary rules of his own creation that reconcile nothing, 
 that are whimsically limited in their scope, and are ridiculous from their 
 reciprocal contradictions. 
 
 Webster remarks that " the chief value of a dictionary consists in its 
 definitions." Some one else remarks, that " opinions differ." Yet it must 
 be acknowledged that Webster's remark, as applied to his own dictionary, 
 is not far from the truth. The vocabulary of his book has, certainly, the 
 merit of amplitude. He says it " contains sixteen thousand words not to 
 be found in any similar preceding work ; " but when one opens the book 
 in the middle, and finds, consecutively, 
 
 irremovability, irremovable, 
 
 irremovably, irremoval, 
 
 irremunerable, irrenowned, 
 
 irreparability, irreparable, 
 
 irreparableness, irreparably, 
 
 irrepealability, irrepealable, 
 
 irrepealableness, irrepealably, 
 
 irrepentance, 
 he may, perhaps, doubt whether " the value of the dictionary " increases 
 in the direct ratio of its voluminousness. Webster's etymologies, too, are 
 
copious ; probably more so than any preceding lexicographer's, in the pro- 
 portion of three to one ; but as their genuineness is not always beyond 
 question, their quantity is hardly a fair measure of their " value." The 
 orthography of the dictionary requires a more careful consideration. 
 
 The principles or rather the dogmas of Webster's proposed 
 reform, are embodied in the following enumerated paragraphs : 
 
 1. Considering that the tendency of ou* language to greater simplicity 
 and broader analogies ought to be watched and cherished with the utmost 
 care, he felt that whenever a movement toward wider analogies and more 
 general rules had advanced so far as to leave but few exceptions to im- 
 pede its progress, those exceptions ought to be set aside at once, and the 
 analogy rendered complete. 
 
 2. We had numerous words derived from the French, originally ending 
 in re, as, cidre, chambre, etc. And, as these had gradually conformed to 
 English spelling, until the number ending in re was reduced to fifteen or 
 twenty, with their derivatives, it was necessary to complete the analogy 
 at once by transposing the terminations of the remainder. Acre, massacre, 
 and lucre, however, are necessary exceptions, since transposing their 
 terminations would endanger their pronunciation. 
 
 3. We had many hundreds of primitives ending in a single consonant, 
 whose derivatives were formed by the addition of ing, ed, er, etc., and in 
 their derivatives, this single consonant was doubled when the accent fell 
 on it, as, forget, forgetting ; but it was not doubled when the accent fell 
 on a preceding syllable, as garden, gardener. There were also about fifty 
 words ending in /, in winch the analogy was violated, as travel, traveller. 
 It was necessary, therefore, at once to strike^ out the superfluous I from 
 these fifty words. But the 11 was retained in chancellor, metallurgy, crys- 
 talline, with their cognates, because they were derived directly from the 
 Latin and Greek, cancellarius, metallum, and xgtio-TaMo;. 
 
 4. Expense, recompense, license, which formerly had a c in their last 
 syllable, had since taken an s, because s is used in their derivatives, as, 
 expensive, etc. As, in this instance, it was necessary to change only three 
 words to complete the analogy, namely, defence, offence, and pretence, 
 their c was at once replaced with an s, and they were written defense, 
 offense, and pretense. It had been asked, why not spell fence in the same 
 manner ? And nothing is easier than the answer ; the derivatives require 
 the c ; as, fencing, etc., and therefore the c offence is retained. 
 
 5. Foretel, instil, distil, fulfil should be written foretell, instill, etc., 
 because their derivatives, foretelling, instilling, etc., are so written. 
 
6. Dulness, fulness, skilful, wilful, must be written dullness, fullness, 
 etc., because their primitives are so written ; as, dull, full, skill, will. 
 Walker says there is no reason why we should not write dullness, fullness, 
 skillful, and willful, as well as stiffness, gruffness, and crossness. 
 
 7. Such compounds as befall, miscall, install, forestall, inthrall, enroll, 
 and their derivatives, befalling, miscalling, installing, forestalling, inthrall- 
 ment, and enrollment, are spelled with the 11, to prevent a false pronun- 
 ciation. 
 
 8. Mould and moult should be spelled mold and molt, because the u 
 has been dropped, or never was used, in gold, bold, fold, colt. 
 
 9. Wo should be spelled woe, because doe, foe, hoe, toe, and all similar 
 nouns of one syllable are so spelled. The parts of speech other than 
 nouns, as, go, so, no, retain the termination in o ; as also do nouns of more 
 than one syllable, as, motto, potato, tomato. 
 
 10. Practise, the verb, should be spelled practice, because the noun is 
 so spelled. Drought should be spelled drouth, because it is extensively 
 so pronounced. Height should be spelled hight, because it was so spelled 
 by Milton. Ton should be spelled tun, and molasses melasses, because 
 that spelling is more consistent with the etymologies. Contemporary 
 should be spelled cotemporary, because it is more easily pronounced. 
 Plough should be spelled plow, because that spelling more naturally rep- 
 resents the sound. Axe should be spelled ax, because axe is an improper 
 spelling. 
 
 11. Verbs from the Greek w, and others formed in analogy with 
 them, have the termination in ize, as, baptize, legalize, etc. Catechise and 
 exorcise are exceptions. Verbs, and some nouns, derived directly from 
 the French, and a few from other sources, have the termination in ise, as, 
 advertise, advise, affranchise, chastise, circumcise, comprise, compromise, 
 criticise, demise, despise, devise, disfranchise, disguise, emprise, enfran- 
 chise, enterprise, exercise, merchandise, misprise, premise, reprise, revise, 
 supervise, surmise, surprise. 
 
 These eleven paragraphs, dogmas, rules, or whatever they may be 
 termed, form, with the exception of a few " instances " entirely too trivial 
 to be discussed, the sum total of Webster's orthographical creed, pre- 
 sented substantially in his own words. 
 
 1. The assumptions of number 1 are characteristic and suggestive. 
 They prophetically weigh and measure the lexicographer. Nobody can 
 doubt what sort of orthography will follow such a preamble. The " ten- 
 dencies " which it would puzzle any other philologist to discover, the 
 
complacent " solicitude " with which those tendencies are " watched and 
 cherished" and the heroism which summarily removes impeding " excep- 
 tions," (regardless of consequences, as reformers always nobly proclaim 
 themselves,) are consistent with each other, and pleasant to look upon. 
 
 2. Webster found fifteen or twenty words derived from the French, 
 and retaining their original termination in re, " although numerous other 
 words, of similar derivation and termination, had gradually conformed to 
 English spelling ; " that is, the re had been transposed to er, as, cidre to 
 cider, chambre to chamber, etc. What Webster means by the term 
 " English spelling," in this connection, is not obvious ; re is as consistent 
 with any admitted or fixed principle of English orthography as er ; but 
 the reason why these fifteen or twenty words retained their original ter- 
 mination, and why Webster should have let them alone, is obvious enough 
 to every one but himself; namely, that their derivatives required it. As 
 Webster found the words, they stood thus : 
 
 theatre, theatrical, 
 
 sepulchre, sepulchral, 
 
 centre, central, 
 
 lustre, 
 
 lustrous, etc., etc. 
 
 As he left them, they stand thus : 
 
 
 theater, 
 
 theatrical, 
 
 sepulcher, 
 
 sepulchral, 
 
 center, 
 
 central, 
 
 luster, 
 
 lustrous, etc., etc. ; 
 
 that is, he transposed the termination of the primitive, to conform to his 
 ride, and then retransposed it in the derivative to conform to " English 
 spelling." His derivatives should be, 
 
 theaterical, 
 
 sepulcheral, 
 
 centeral, 
 
 lusterous, etc. 
 Acre, massacre, lucre, he says " are necessary exceptions." Doubtless 
 they are " necessary " to his rule, and that proves his rule to be a bad 
 one ; it neither " promotes simplicity " nor " broadens analogy." When 
 derivatives on the one hand, and pronunciation on the other, oppose the 
 working of an arbitrary rule, a prudent man would withhold his rule ; 
 but reformers are seldom prudent men. In direct contradiction of this 
 rule, Webster spells ogre with the original termination. 
 
 3. For reasons satisfactory to Webster ante, rule number 3 it was 
 
8 
 
 necessary to strike out the " superfluous I" of travelling, and " about fifty 
 similar words." If the precept in rule number 2 has any force, namely, 
 that the spelling must not be altered when altering it endangers the pro- 
 nunciation, some of these fifty changes will be found hazardous. For 
 instance, as a matter of fact, and by orthoepical construction, 
 
 shaveling, 
 
 starveling, etc., 
 are words of two syllables ; yet, under this rule, Webster ordains that 
 
 traveling, etc., 
 which have precisely the same orthoepical construction, shall be pro- 
 nounced in three syllables. Here, then, is arbitrary rule the second, in 
 direct conflict with arbitrary rule the first. Which must give way ? But 
 that is not all. Webster says that chancellor, metallurgy, and crystalline 
 retain the 11 because they are derived directly from the Latin and Greek. 
 This " because " may as well be investigated. The lexicographer bases 
 an orthographical principle on his simple assertion of a fact ; but that 
 fact is, first, inherently improbable ; secondly, is utterly beyond the as- 
 sertor's knowledge ; and thirdly, would not support his position if it were 
 true. 1. It is improbable. The three words necessarily came to the 
 French before they were adopted by the English; and as xgycmxllog 
 changed into crystallinus on its journey through Rome, they all went 
 "directly" from Italy to France; and our English ancestors had no 
 occasion to go to Italy for what was already to be had by crossing the 
 Channel. Moreover, the h of chancellor proves that it came " directly " 
 from the French, and Webster disproves his own assertion of its deriva- 
 tion from cancellarius, by giving, in his own dictionary, chancelier as its 
 etymology ! 2. It is beyond the assertor's knowledge. Neither he nor 
 his great-grandfather was there when the word was adopted ; no human 
 being can affirm, as truth, what is so remote and conjectural ; and a vague 
 and rash guess forms no apology, even, for such an affirmation. 3. If the 
 words were " directly so derived," the fact would not justify Webster's 
 excepting them from his rule. That rule is, inferentially otherwise, it 
 has no meaning whatever that words " directly derived " always retain 
 the 11 of their originals. Yet observe how Webster himself sets this rule 
 at nought in this very dictionary : 
 
 excel, spelled with one I, is derived from excello ; 
 
 dispel, " " dispello ; 
 
 repel, " " " repello ; 
 
libel, spelled with one /, is derived from libellus ; 
 pupil, " " " pupillus ; 
 
 compel, " " " compello ; 
 
 and so forth, and so forth. Nor is this all. After Webster has expunged 
 the " superfluous I " from his " fifty words," marvellous, counsellor, etc., 
 in obedience to rule number 3, he proceeds, in defiance of the same rule, 
 to spell in his dictionary as follows : 
 
 gravel, (primitive,) lamel, (primitive,) 
 
 gravelly, lamellar, 
 
 chapel, (primitive,) lamellarly, 
 
 chapellany, lamellate, 
 
 cancel, (primitive,) lamellated, 
 
 cancellate, lamelliferous, 
 
 cancellated, etc., etc., 
 
 cancellation, 
 and so on, indefinitely. There is another point to be considered, about 
 rule number 3. Its phraseology seems to be plain, but Webster's prac- 
 tice confuses it. The rule says, that when the accent falls on the final 
 consonant of the primitive, it is to be doubled in the derivative, and not 
 otherwise ; as, forget, forgetting, in the one case, and travel, traveler, in 
 the other. Yet Webster spells 
 
 tranquil, tranquillity, etc., 
 as if he were prepared to say, that, though the accent does not fall on the 
 final consonant of the primitive while it remains a primitive, yet if that 
 consonant takes the accent when the word becomes a derivative, it is still 
 to be doubled. This would be interpreting Webster's rule with a large 
 latitude in his favor, and it is an interpretation to which he is by no means 
 entitled. Nevertheless, give him the full benefit of it, and then apply the 
 rule, so construed, to his spelling of 
 
 civil, civility, 
 
 legal, legality, 
 
 frugal, frugality, etc., 
 and, then, for a counter-contradiction of his rule, where the final con- 
 sonant of the primitive is accented, and the same consonant in the deriv- 
 ative is not, take his spelling of 
 
 excel, excellent, 
 and the lexicographer's inconsistency approaches the sublime ! It is to be 
 observed that the spelling of the twenty and odd' words here cited is cor- 
 rect in fact, but is not correct according to Webster's own rules. 
 2 
 
10 
 
 4. Webster specifies license, among other words, as having been changed 
 from licence, " because the derivatives require the s" This affirmation 
 is an extraordinary " license " for a lexicographer whose dictionary con- 
 tains the following words : 
 
 license, licentiate, 
 
 licensed, licentiation, 
 
 licensing, licentious, 
 
 licenser, licentiously, 
 
 licensure, licentiousness ; 
 that is, four derivatives in which the s is used, and five where it is not. 
 And this misstatement of the fact is material, because Webster makes it 
 one of his points of justification in " changing the only three words that 
 remain, terminating in ence." But what does Webster mean by saying 
 that pretence, offence, and defence, are " the only three words that remain 
 terminating in ence " ? His own dictionary contains many other words 
 " terminating in ence," the derivatives of which do not retain the c, all of 
 which he leaves just as he finds them, in a state of absolute non-conformity 
 to his rule. For example : 
 
 sentence, sententious, 
 
 consequence, consequential, 
 
 inference, inferential, 
 
 and so on. If a direct answer could have been extorted from Webster, 
 it would be pleasant to see his reply to this question : Since it was neces- 
 sary to change defence into defense, because defensive is spelled with an 
 s, why should sentence remain unchanged, when its derivatives are spelled 
 with a i? Webster says, " The question has been asked, Why not spell 
 fence with an s ? " And he finds " nothing easier than the reply, that 
 the derivatives offence require the c." If this reply means any thing, it 
 means that the spelling of a derivative must control the spelling of its 
 primitive ; and if this rule has any force, it must be general in its appli- 
 cation, and' not restricted to such isolated cases as Webster's caprice may 
 dictate. The reader will have occasion to keep this point in remem- 
 brance. Now, what are " the primitives," in the case of fence, offence, 
 and defence ? Webster's dictionary gives the answer : 
 fend, the root of offend and defend; 
 fence, for etymology, see fend; 
 in other words, fend is the original word ; and from it, in order, come 
 fence, offend, defend, offence, offensive, etc., defence, defensive, etc. So 
 that, when Webster changed defence to defense, instead of conforming to 
 
11 
 
 his rule, that the spelling of the derivative must govern that of the prim- 
 itive, he, in fact, and without knowing it, practically enacted a new rule, 
 that the spelling of one derivative must govern the spelling of another 
 derivative, whenever the lexicographer deemed it expedient. The 
 remaining word of the " only three that remained," is pretence. Here, 
 again, by parity of reasoning, the actual primitive is pretend; but, for the 
 sake of the argument, let pretence be the primitive, and then consult 
 Webster's dictionary : 
 
 pretense, 
 
 pretensed, (Encyc.) 
 
 pretension ; 
 the primitive, pretence, is changed, to conform to its two derivatives. 
 But what sort of a modern English word is pretensed ? Webster cites 
 the Encyclopaedia as authority. What Encyclopaedia ? Rule out the 
 word, for the present, as not sufficiently accredited, and there remains one 
 primitive vs. one derivative ; a tie vote. But this is not a fair statement 
 on the part of Webster ; he omits the familiar word pretentious. His 
 dictionary, which " contains 16,000 more words than can be found in any 
 previous dictionary," and which attains that distinction by recruits from 
 all creditable and discreditable sources, nevertheless does not contain the 
 word pretentious. Why ? Did Webster omit that, and insert pretensed, 
 in order to give " the derivatives " a uniformity of spelling, and a major- 
 ity of numbers ? If so, the proceeding smacks strongly of false " pre- 
 tences." 
 
 5, 6. Under rule number 3, Webster hunts down the "superfluous I" 
 with the spirit of an exterminator ; and in his preface, he still further 
 hardens himself against I, by quoting a sneer from Walker ; but Web- 
 ster, under rule number 3, and Webster under rules 5 and 6, are two 
 different men. The reasons given for adding an I to some words are 
 quite as good as the reasons for taking it away from others ; of which, 
 more anon. In the mean time, it is impossible not to suggest, in refer- 
 ence to the quotation from Walker, (vide rule number 6,) that as dul- 
 ness should be written dullness, because its primitive is written dull, 
 skilful should be written skillfull, to " complete the analogy " with stiff- 
 ness. An illustration, however, is a dangerous form of argument ; it is 
 very apt to prove too much, and those who resort to it in one case must 
 submit to it in another. Apply this to rule number 5. " Distil, etc., 
 should be written distill, because the derivatives, distiller, etc., require 
 the 11;" then, certainly, forget, submit, begin, refer, concur, repel, and so 
 
12 
 
 on, should be written forgett, submitt, beginn, referr, concurr, repell, and 
 so on, because their derivatives require the final consonant to be doub- 
 led ; as, forgetting, submitting, beginning, referring, concurring, repelling. 
 By the way, Webster's views of the powers of a lexicographer are 
 pleasantly illustrated in a remark about Walker. Having quoted, in his 
 preface, Walker's opinion on " the superfluous /," he says, " These were 
 the deliberate opinions of Walker. If he had taken the trouble to 
 carry them into his vocabulary, instead of relying on this mere remark 
 for the correction of the error, probably, by this time, the error would 
 have been wholly eradicated from our orthography." 
 
 7. Webster's manner of stating this rule leads the reader to suppose 
 that befall, install, forestall, inthrall, miscall, and enroll, are Webster's 
 improvements on the previous spelling ; but the last two, only, are his ; 
 and it is very odd that, when he became alive to the danger of mis- 
 pronouncing enrol with one 7, he should be so insensible to the same 
 danger in control, as to spell it with a single I; and that, too, while he 
 spells the derivatives controlling^ etc., with the double I, in direct oppo- 
 sition to his own rule number 5. 
 
 8. " Mould and moult should be written mold and molt, because the u 
 has been dropped, or never was used, in gold, bold, fold, and colt." The 
 reason is good, and its force may be shown, as in rule number 5, by 
 carrying out the illustration ; court should be written cort, " because the 
 u has been dropped, or never was used in" port and fort! 
 
 9. Webster found wo, go, so, no, without the e, and foe, toe, hoe, 
 with it. His reason for adding the e to wo, and for not adding it to go, 
 so, no, is, that wo is a noun, and the other three words are " other parts 
 of speech." This is a small matter, at best ; but Webster's reason is en- 
 tirely arbitrary. 
 
 10. Waiving the questions whether Milton is an authority for Eng- 
 lish orthography in the nineteenth century, and if he is so, whether hight 
 is not misprinted from his manuscript per alium, one question remains 
 touching rule number 10, viz. : Is there any disputed point in ethics, mor- 
 als, religion, astronomy, or nursery rhymes, which may not be effectually 
 disposed of by this universal solvent " because "? A word, however, as 
 to Milton, on the questions waived. Webster cites a poet who died a 
 century and a half before the " American Dictionary " was born, in sup- 
 port of the spelling of the single word hight. But, surely, Milton, if 
 an authority at all, cannot be restricted to one word ; he must be pre- 
 sumed to have had a knowledge of orthography generally, if he is per- 
 
13 
 
 mitted to dogmatize on it particularly ; and if Webster accredits him as 
 a standard, he must follow him as a standard. Turn, then, to the first 
 edition of Paradise Lost. That may pretty safely be taken as an 
 exponent of the poet's principles of English spelling if, in his blind- 
 ness, he had any. This edition, published in London in 1669, has,^?as- 
 sim, the following specimens : 
 
 Som (some), rowled (rolled), shon (shone), tast (taste), fowl (foul), 
 thir (their), justifie, defie, adversarie, progenie, alwaies, skie, appeer, 
 neer, deer, binde, manhinde, wilde, waye, ruine, cherube, haire, paine, 
 forme, eare, gulfe, rime, accoste, meeter, mee, hee, seaventh, warr, clann, 
 hmn,farr, lyes, onely, desperat, supream, sollid, etc. 
 
 11. Webster does not say ivhy "verbs from the Greek iw terminate 
 in ize, as baptize," etc., nor why "catechise and exorcise are excep- 
 tions." But the working of his rule, under which he changes defence to 
 defense, because defensive requires the s, seems to be impeded when 
 applied to baptize, for he leaves it as he finds it, although he is compelled 
 to spell its derivatives with an s ; baptist, baptism, baptismal, etc. The 
 assertion that baptize and legalize are " derived directly from the Greek," 
 needs confirmation. Webster proceeds to say that "verbs and some 
 nouns, derived from the French and elsewhere, have the termination in 
 we," and he furnishes a list of examples that professes to include the 
 whole. The necessity for the remark and the citations is not very ob- 
 vious ; but it is strange that with his propensity to " complete analogies," 
 he should have omitted to include, in his list the single and " only re- 
 maining" word prize ; certainly, on his own showing, that should be 
 spelled prise. 
 
 It would seem, then, that Webster's much vaunted reform is limited 
 to about eighty words in a dictionary containing eighty thousand words ; 
 being the proportion of one to a thousand. A homoeopathic quantity ; 
 yet, as the words victimized are those in common use, the minute dose 
 has had a visible effect on the system. But the effect is not remedial. 
 The patient is no better. English orthography has not been simplified, 
 nor have its analogies been broadened by Webster's labors, even sup- 
 posing his innovations had been accepted by scholars which they have 
 not. The dictionary may sell, but not for its orthography. The proprie- 
 tors of a large publishing house, who are also publishers of the dictionary, 
 have introduced Webster's spelling into their books, probably as a matter 
 of contract ; and some newspapers have, to a greater or less extent, taken 
 the same course. But these instances carry no authority on a purely 
 
H 
 
 literary question. Educated men and good writer?, generally, have re- 
 pudiated the experiment. And why should they not? The volunteer 
 reformer was every way unequal to his task. He has given no good 
 reason for any one change ; and his changes, so far as adopted, have 
 introduced confusion. His rules are ridiculous in themselves, irreconcila- 
 ble with each other, and constantly at variance with his own practice. 
 He changes a termination, or adds or takes away a letter, because the 
 primitive requires it because the derivative requires it because it 
 endangers the pronunciation, when it does not because it secures the 
 pronunciation, when it does not because the word is a noun because 
 it isn't a noun because it is an exception because it is so pronounced 
 (by ignorant people) because Milton spelled it so in short, "be- 
 cause " any thing that fits the caprice of the moment. Such advancing 
 and retreating, such convolutions and involutions of reasoning, all for the 
 sake of doing what never was done before, and all within the compass of 
 eighty words, can find no precedent in the career of reforms. 
 
 And it is remarkable, that Webster, with all his plodding, could not 
 hit upon the really weak points of the language. He had the luck always 
 to attack what was impregnable at least, to his assaults. There is no 
 lack of inconsistencies in English orthography ; but the instances that are 
 least defensible are just those that Webster failed to discover. It may 
 be well to designate a few specimens not with the intention of urging 
 a reform ; Webster's experience in that line may well deter imitators ; 
 but to show how obscure are obvious truths to a certain class of in- 
 vestigators. 
 
 To lead, to read) the preterite and past participle of these verbs are 
 pronounced led and red, and yet are spelled led and read. 
 
 Use, abuse, rise ; the nouns and verbs have a uniform spelling, but 
 the nouns are pronounced as uce and ice, and the verbs uze and ize ; yet 
 advice and advise, with a similar difference of pronunciation, are spelled 
 to conform to that difference. Again, surprise, surmise, etc., pronounce 
 the s like z, in both the verb and the noun. 
 
 Few and view ; why should not the spelling of these words be uniform ? 
 
 Whole in the adverb drops the e, and becomes wholly ; vile in the 
 adverb retains the e, vilely. 
 
 Fascinate and vacillate ; one with the 5 and the other without it ; im- 
 itate and imminent ; one with one m, and the other with two. These 
 words follow their respective etymologies, but there are so many instances 
 where etymology does not control orthography, it seems rather Websterian 
 to give that as a reason for the difference. 
 
15 
 
 Vermilion, pavilion, cotillion ; all directly from the French, and all 
 having the 11 in the original, though only the last retains it. 
 
 Boot, root, foot, in the singular, change, in the plural, to boots, roots, 
 feet 
 
 Proffer and profit, with a similar etymology, are thus differently 
 speDed. 
 
 Couple and supple, from the French couple and souple ; etymology in 
 all respects identical, and yet, though pronounced alike in English, are 
 thus diversely spelled. 
 
 Episode and epitome have the same etymology, yet one has three syl- 
 lables, and the other four ; this, however, is not a matter of spelling, but 
 of pronunciation. 
 
 These are a few examples of real inconsistency in English orthog- 
 raphy ; but probably no man in his senses would undertake to reform 
 them ; the game would not pay for the candle. 
 
 Webster's tampering with the language was a calamity, because no 
 radicalism is without its followers, and he has his. But the thing will 
 have its day, and this good may come of it other enthusiasts, taking 
 warning from his example, may learn that a reformer whose entire theory 
 is based on assumptions, whose rules are bare assertions of his opinions, 
 and whose practice is inconsistent with both, will never make much prog- 
 ress among educated minds. 
 
Worcester's New Dictionary 
 
 A 
 
 PRONOUNCING, EXPLANATORY AND SYNONYMOUS 
 
 DICTIONARY 
 
 OP THE 
 
 ENGLISH LANGUAGE: 
 
 "WITH 
 
 I. PRONUNCIATION OP GREEK AND LATIN PROPER NAMES. 
 H. PRONUNCIATION OF SCRIPTURE PROPER NAMES. 
 HI. COMMON CHRISTIAN NAMES, WITH THEIR SIGNIFICATION. 
 IV. PRONUNCIATION OF MODERN GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES. 
 V. ABBREVIATIONS USED IN WRITING AND PRINTING. 
 VI. PHRASES AND QUOTATIONS IN LATIN, FRENCH, ITALIAN, AND SPANISH. 
 VH. THE PRINCIPAL DEITIES AND HEROES IN GREEK AND ROMAN FABU- 
 LOUS HISTORY. 
 
 By JOSEPH E. WORCESTER, LL. D. 
 Octavo. 565 Pages. 
 
 This Dictionary, designed for the use of Colleges, Academics, 
 High Schools, and Private Libraries, bears on every page indubi- 
 table marks of having been carefully and skilfully prepared by Dr. 
 Worcester, whose previous contributions to our educational litera- 
 ture have been models of condensation, of lucid arrangement, and 
 of concise and perspicuous language, in their mode of presenting 
 the results of extensive and accurate research. 
 
 In the department of Definitions, he has not contented himself 
 with merely giving the accepted significations of a word, but has 
 
WORCESTER S NEW DICTIONARY. 
 
 shown in what connections or relations it is appropriately replaced 
 by nearly equivalent words. This is what is meant by the term 
 synonymous in the title^plt^adds greatly to copiousness and variety 
 in speech and writing to be able to substitute one word for another 
 without an essential alteration of the idea to be expressed. But it 
 is very difficult to discriminate with accuracy between several 
 expressions nearly related, and to select that which shall be most 
 appropriate in a given case. Very few, even of the best speakers 
 and writers, become so thoroughly masters of their native language 
 as never to experience embarrassment in the search after a fit 
 expression. It is to help in overcoming this difficulty that Dr. 
 Worcester has introduced, in connection with those words which 
 seem most to require it, a short exhibition of the synonymous terms, 
 showing at a glance the distinctions to be noticed in choosing among 
 them. Take, for example, the following words : 
 
 j^-bXn'don, v. a. To give up; to quit; to forsake; to desert; to leave; to relinquish ; to re- 
 sign; to renounce; to abdicate; to surrender; to forego. 
 
 Syn. Bad parents abandon their children ; men abandon the unfortunate objects of their 
 guilty passions; men are abandoned by their friends; they abandon themselves to unlawful 
 pleasures. A mariner abandons bis vessel and cargo in a storm ; we abandon our houses 
 and property to an invading army ; we desert a post or station ; leave the country ; forsake 
 companions; relinquish claims ; quit business; resign an office ; renounce a profession, or the 
 world ; abdicate a throne ; surrender a town ; surrender what we have in trust ; we abandon 
 a measure or an enterprise ; forego a claim or a pleasure. 
 
 ^D-vIce', n. Counsel; instruction: intelligence. 
 
 Syn. A physician gives advice; a parent, counsel ; a teacher, instruction : advice, intel- 
 ligence, or information may be received from a correspondent. 
 
 ^-MAZE', . o. To astonish; perplex; confound. 
 
 Syn. Amazed at what is frightful or incomprehensible; astonished at what is striking ; 
 perplexed, confounded, or confused at what is embarrassing ; surprised at what is unexpected. 
 
 Am-bXs'sa-dqr, n. A foreign minister of the highest rank sent on public business from one 
 sovereign power to another. 
 
 Syn. An ambassador and plenipotentiary imply the highest representative rank. An 
 ambassador and resident, or minister resident, are permanent functionaries. An envoy and 
 resident are functionaries of the second class of foreign ministers; and a charge" d'affaires il 
 one of the third or lowest class. 
 
 A-NAL'Y-sTs, n. ; pi. A-nXl'y-SE. The resolution of any thing into its first elements or com- 
 ponent parts; opposed to synthesis, which is the union of the component parts to form a 
 compound. Synthesis is synonymous with composition; analysis, with decomposition. 
 
 As-so-CJ-a'TIQN, (as-so-she-a'shun) n. Confederacy; partnership; connection; union. 
 
 Sun. An ecclesiastical or scientific association; a confederacy of states; & partnership in 
 trade; a connection between persons; a combination of individuals; a union of parties or of 
 states. 
 
 Av-A-Rt"ciQUS, (av-a-rlsh'us) a. Possessed of avarice; greedy of gain; covetous; niggardly; 
 miserly; parsimonious; penurious. 
 
 Syn. The avaricious are unwilling to part with their money; the covetous are eager to 
 obtain money ; the niggardly are mean in their dealings with others ; the miserly, parsimo- 
 nious, and penurious are mean to themselves, as well as to others. 
 
 Cfis'TQM, 7i. The frequent repetition of the same act; habit; habitual practice; usage: 
 patronage : duties on exports and imports. See Taxes. 
 
 Si/n. Custom is a frequent repetition of the same act; habit is the effect of such repett 
 tiou ; fashion is the custom of numbers ; usage, the habit of numbers. 
 
 D?-ceiv'er, n. One who deceives ; a cheat. 
 
 Syn. A deceiver or cheat imposes on individuals; an impostor, on the public. 
 
WORCESTER'S NEW DICTIONARY. 
 
 De-fend', v. a. To protect ; to vindicate ; to repel. 
 
 Syn. Defend the innocent; protect the weak; vindicate those who are unjustly accused; 
 repel aggression. 
 
 Dj-cern'ment, (djz-ze*rn'ment) n. Act of discerning; ^^tration ; sagacity; judgment. 
 Syn. Discernment to distinguish ; penetration or sagaTRg to perceive ; discrimination to 
 mark differences ; judgment to decide. 
 
 HIs'tq-ry, n. A narrative of past events ; a relation of facts respecting nations, empires, &c. 
 Civil or political history is the history of states and empires. Profane history is another 
 term for civil history, as distinguished from sacred history, which is the historical part of the 
 Scriptures. Ecclesiastical history is the history of the Christian church. Natural history is 
 the history of all the productions of nature, animal, vegetable, and mineral. 
 
 Syn. Annals are historical events digested in a series according to years ; a clironide is a 
 register of events in the order of time ; memoirs, an account of events or transactions writ- 
 ten familiarly, or as they are remembered by the narrator. 
 
 Xn'FJ-del, n. A disbeliever of Christianity; an atheist; an unbeliever. 
 
 Syn. An infidel is one who has no belief in divine revelation ; unbeliever and disbeliever 
 are terms commonly, but not always, used in the same sense : a sceptic professes to doubt 
 of all things : a deist believes in the existence of God, but disbelieves revelation : an athe- 
 ist denies the existence of God : freethinker is commonly used in an ill 6enso, as synony- 
 mous with infidel. 
 
 LXn'gua<^e (lang'gwaj), n. The mode of utterance; human speech; the speech of one na- 
 tion; tongue; dialect; idiom; style. 
 
 Syn. Language is a very general term, as we say the language not only of men, but of 
 beasts and birds. Tongue refers to an original language, as the Hebrew tongue. Speech 
 contemplates language as broken or cut into words, as the parts of speech, the gift of speech. 
 Every language has its peculiar idioms. A dialect is an incidental form of a language used 
 by the inhabitants of a particular district. The Greek language ; Greek idiom ; Attic dia> 
 led. Native or vernacular language ; mother tongue. Elegant or good language or style. 
 
 LlW'YER, n. One versed in law; an attorney. 
 
 Syn. Lawyer is a general term for one who is versed in, or who practises law. Barris- 
 ter, counsellor, and counsel, are terms applied to lawyers who advise and assist clients, and 
 plead for them in a court of justice. An attorney is a Lawyer who acts for another, and pre- 
 pares cases for trial. An advocate is a lawyer who argues causes. A special pleader is one 
 who prepares the written pleadings in a cause. A chamber counsellor is a lawyer who gives 
 advice in his office, but does not act in court. A conveyancer is one who draws writings, by 
 which real estate is transferred. Civilian and jurist are terms applied to such as are versed 
 in the science of law, particularly civil or Roman law. A solicitor is a lawyer employed in 
 a chancery court. A publicist is a writer on the laws of nature and nations. 
 
 These instances will suffice to give an idea of the very great ben- 
 efit one may receive by having this Dictionary at hand while engaged 
 in composition ; and to young pupils in our schools who are making 
 their first attempts at expressing their thoughts in writing, such a 
 book must be invaluable. At the same time it will not be less 
 useful as a guide in all other matters upon which dictionaries 
 are usually consulted. The definitions, though concisely expressed, 
 are accurate, and sufficiently full to satisfy all ordinary inquiries. 
 In Spelling, the most approved usage is followed, without any 
 attempt at innovation, and the various modes of Pronunciation 
 are given, with their several authorities, the author's preference 
 being only intimated, but not insisted on. 
 
 In the Appendix we find, the Vocabularies of Classical, Scripture, 
 and Modern Geographical Names, which were contained in the 
 Comprehensive Dictionary, here much enlarged, and, in addition, a 
 
Worcester's new dictionary. 
 
 list of common Christian names of men and women, with their 
 etymologies and signification, in the perusal of which one may find 
 much instruction and amusement. 
 
 Numerous letters have been received by the publishers, and others 
 by the author (to which the publishers have had access), from some 
 of the most distinguished teachers and literary men in different 
 parts of the country. The following extracts will show in what esti- 
 mation the work is held by them. 
 
 From the Hon. Edward Everett, LL. D. 
 
 Boston, Mass., November 19, 1855. 
 
 I willingly comply with your request that I would express my opinion of 
 the Pronouncing, Explanatory, and Synonymous Dictionary, by Mr. Worces- 
 ter, of which you were good enough to send me a copy a few weeks since. 
 As far as I have had occasion to examine it, I find this new Dictionary to be 
 marked with the characteristics of Mr. Worcester's former works of the 
 same class, viz., accuracy as to matters of undisputed fact, and sound judg- 
 ment as to debatable points. Tfis orthography and pronunciation represent, 
 as far as I am aware, the most approved usage of our language. His defini- 
 tions seldom leave any thing to desire. The synonymes form a valuable 
 feature of the present work, and a novel one for a manual dictionary. The 
 matter contained in the Appendix is of great value, and will materially pro- 
 mote the convenience of the reader. 
 
 I have made constant use of Mr. Worcester's Dictionaries since their first 
 publication, and I consider the present work, in some respects, an improve- 
 ment on its predecessors. EDWARD EVERETT. 
 
 From William H. Prescott, LL. D. 
 
 Boston, Mass., November 8, 1855. 
 
 I am much obliged to you for the present of your excellent Dictionary. It 
 is a welcome addition to my library ; for, though I had provided myself with 
 an earlier edition, I was not possessed of this, which evidently contains many 
 improvements on its predecessors. I have long since learned to appreciate 
 your valuable labors, which have done so much to establish the accuracy of 
 pronunciation, while affording the reader, by the citation of authorities, the 
 means of determining for himself. Nor is the public less indebted to you for 
 the pains you have bestowed on settling the orthography of words, which in 
 many instances affords ample debatable ground to the inquirer. These more 
 prominent merits of all your dictionaries are enhanced by the judicious selec- 
 tion of synonymes, with which the present edition is enriched. 
 
 A work compiled on so sound and philosophical principles, and yet so well 
 accommodated to popular use, cannot fail to commend itself to all who would 
 have a correct knowledge of their vernacular. 
 
 WILLIAM H. PRESCOTT. 
 
NEW DICTIONARY. 
 
 From Washington Irving, LL. D. 
 
 Sunny Side, N. Y., October 3, 1855. 
 Accept my thanks for the copy of your Pronouncing, Explanatory, and 
 Synonymous Dictionary which you have had the kindness to send me. As 
 far as I have had time to examine it, it gives me great satisfaction, and ap- 
 pears to me to be well calculated to fulfil the purpose for which it professe* 
 to be intended to supply the wants of common schools, and to be a suffi- 
 cient manual for schools of a higher order. 
 
 WASHINGTON IRVING. 
 
 From the Hon. Josiah Quincy, LL. D., late President of Harvard University 
 
 Quincy, Mass., October 9, 1355. 
 As I once, I think, told you, that agreeing with Lord Bolingbroke in little 
 else, I shared his admiration and gratitude for toriters of dictionaries, he 
 thought them worthy of special thanks to Heaven, works so full of labor, 
 so extensive in their objects of research, yet so minute in the subjects of 
 attention ; so useful as to have become a necessity to literary life, yet requiring 
 for success so many particulars, various in their kinds, so much general 
 knowledge, so much accuracy of thought, combined with judgment in inves- 
 tigation, that it seems that nature must be more than usually beneficent to 
 confer on any one man all the qualities requisite to a happy result in the 
 undertaking. The public have long since passed judgment on your qualifica- 
 tions, and the lapse of many years has confirmed its earliest decisions. 
 
 JOSIAH QUINCY. 
 
 From Francis Bowen, A. M., Alford Professor of Moral Philosophy in Harvard 
 College, and late Editor of the North American Review. 
 
 Cambbidge, Mass., October 4, 1855. 
 I am much obliged to you for the copy of your new Dictionary, which I 
 have examined with some care. It seems well adapted to answer its purpose 
 as an academic text-book, being of convenient size, and distinctly printed 
 on good paper, so that it can be freely consulted without injury to the eyes. 
 The vocabulary is full enough, and the character of the predecessors of the 
 book is a sufficient voucher for its accuracy. The synonymes are a valuable 
 addition to the plan of the work, and so far as I have examined them they 
 appear to be concisely and clearly expressed. I have no doubt that it will 
 have the ample success which has attended all your previous publications on 
 lexicography. FRANCIS BOWEN. 
 
 From the Rev. Edward Hitchcock, D. D., late President of Amherst College. 
 
 Amherst, Mass., October 3, 1855. 
 1 acknowledge with gratitude the receipt of your new Pronouncing, Ex- 
 planatory, and Synonymous Dictionary. Having been in the habit of using 
 the "Universal and Critical Dictionary" almost exclusively for several years, 
 I shall welcome the new one with its improvements and additions. So far as 
 I have examined it, it seems to me admirably adapted to the sphere it was 
 intended to occupy. I trust the public will appreciate its value, and thus 
 reward you in some measure for yoor indefatigable and long- continued labors 
 in this department of learning. EDWARD HITCHCOCK. 
 
NEW DICTIONARY, 
 
 from the Hon. John McLean, II. D., Associate Justice of the Supreme Court 
 of the United States. 
 
 Cincinnati, Ohio, October 21, 1855. 
 
 I thank you for a copy of your " Pronouncing, Explanatory, and Synony- 
 mous Dictionary of the English Language." Ever since the publication of 
 your large Dictionary I have had it near me in my library, and one of the 
 smaller editions I have always had on my table, at every place where my 
 public duties call me. 
 
 I have often felt desirous that you should publish a more copious edition 
 than the smaller volume of the work, without increasing its size so as to ren- 
 der it unportable. Your late publication is all that can be desired in this 
 respect : and it contains much valuable information on orthography, and the 
 pronunciation of words, which is not found in any other dictionary. 
 
 JOHN MCLEAN. 
 
 From the Rev. Eliphalet Nott, D. D., Fres. of Union College, Schenectady, N. Y. 
 Union College, N. Y., 2 October, 1855. 
 
 The very acceptable present of a copy of "Worcester's Academic Dic- 
 tionary " has come to hand. With the larger work I have long been familiar, 
 and can cheerfully bear testimony to its great merit. It is at once a monu- 
 ment to the honor of its author and to the country thus signalized by his 
 labors. From a glance at the contents of this volume I doubt not it will add 
 alike to the literary wealth of the community and to the reputation of the 
 author. 
 
 Trusting that this production, the result of so much patient toil and exten- 
 sive research, will receive from the public the reward it so richly deserves, 
 I am, very respectfully, yours, ELIPH'T NOTT. 
 
 From C. C. Felton, LL. D., Eliot Professor of Greek Literature in Harvard 
 
 College. 
 
 Cambridge, Mass., October 1, 1855. 
 I am greatly obliged to you for the copy of your Dictionary which you 
 sent to me. I shall keep it on my table for constant reference, and I 
 know very well it will be extremely useful to me. It gives me great 
 pleasure to see the general and hearty recognition of the value of your labors 
 in this important department of literature. The influence of your works 
 is rapidly extending, in spite of opposition ; and I am very sure that your 
 fjreat Dictionary will become the standard everywhere. 
 
 C C. FELTON. 
 
 From the Rev. William A. Stearns, D. L., President of Amherst College. 
 Amherst College, Mass., October 2, 1855. 
 
 I have already looked into it [the Dictionary] sufficiently to see that it is 
 a great improvement on your former work, which to say of any work of the 
 kind is the greatest praise. I am sure it will be hailed with gladness by the 
 best scholars in the country. Henceforth, for years to come, if my life 
 should be spared, the copy you have kindly forwarded to me will have a 
 place within the reach of my study table, and be numbered among my daily 
 companions. WILLIAM A. STEARNS. 
 
From the Eev. Charles G. Finney, President of Oberlin College. 
 
 Oberlin, Ohio, October 6, 1855. 
 I have examined your Dictionary in respect to those things in which all 
 others are, in my estimation, deficient, and am of opinion that, for the English 
 reader, this work will meet the wants of the American people far better than 
 any thing hitherto published. Within the last quarter of a century many 
 foreign words have come into common use, especially in our periodical lit- 
 erature, the signification of which few English readers understand. The ad- 
 vance of science in all its departments is also bringing before the common 
 reader many terms and phrases not generally understood. Our youth resort 
 in vain to the English or American Dictionaries for the definition of those 
 words and phrases. Our language is constantly receiving additions from 
 almost every language of Europe. Besides many foreign terms and phrases 
 not understood in this country because of their origin, many obsolete terms 
 are coming again into use. We hardly take up a newspaper, and seldom a 
 quarterly, without finding something to puzzle the English reader, no ex- 
 planation of which is found in our standard Dictionaries. This want has 
 pressed more heavily upon the reading public from year to year. I have 
 looked over the pages of your work, and have been pleased to find nearly 
 every thing of the kind I refer to that could be desired. It is a timely and 
 highly important book. It is needed in nearly every family, and will be 
 much valued by the reader. That it may have the circulation it deserves 
 is my earnest wish. CHARLES G. FINNEY. 
 
 From the Eev- James Walker, D. D., President of Harvard College. 
 
 Cambridge, Mass., October 5, 1855. 
 I have looked your Pronouncing, Explanatory, and Synonymous Dic- 
 tionary over with some care, and think the additions and improvements you 
 have introduced into it, compared with any of your former Dictionaries, are 
 important, especially as regards synonymes. It is beyond question the most 
 convenient Dictionary for the study-table, and for common use, which I have 
 yet seen. JAMES WALKER. 
 
 From the Hon. Theodore Frelinghnysen, IL. D., President of Eutger's College. 
 
 New Brunswick, N. J., October 6, 1855. 
 I heartily thank you for your excellent " Pronouncing, Explanatory, and 
 Synonymous Dictionary." I shall prize it as a most valuable help in all its 
 departments and especially in the last. It was a happy thought to inter- 
 weave the synonymous explanations ; they so much and readily aid hard- 
 working men, who have so little time for research, as those who have manv 
 executive duties in seminaries and colleges. 
 
 THEO. FRELINGHUYSEN. 
 
 From the Eev. Daniel Kirkwood, LL. D., President of Delaware College. 
 Delaware College, October 3, 1855. 
 I have just received the copy of your " Dictionary of the English Lan- 
 guage," which you had the goodness to forward me. I regard the work as 
 one of great merit, admirably adapted to the uses for which it is designed. 
 
 DANIEL KIRKWOOD. 
 
WORCESTER'S NEW DICTIONARY. 
 
 From the Rev. James B. Lodd, President of Transylvania University. 
 
 Lexington, Kt., October 6, 1855. 
 
 It would exceed the limits which must be prescribed to this communica- 
 tion to enter particularly into the merits of this Dictionary, and I must be 
 content with the general testimonial that, for the purposes of convenient 
 consultation by readers of every class, and more especially by the student who 
 would gain a critical, a practical, and an extensive acquaintance with the Eng- 
 lish and American language un denied, there is no Dictionary equal to this. 
 
 I have no other motive for commending this work than such as may be 
 supposed to spring from a zeal which has grown out of long service in the 
 cause of education, and a desire to see some honor done to the veteran au- 
 thor of the work, who, from the " accursed love of gold," has been sought 
 to be made the victim of literary injustice and fraud in this country and in 
 England. JAMES B. DODD. 
 
 From the Rev. Benjamin Hale, D. D., President of Hobart Free College, 
 
 Geneva, N. Y. 
 
 Geneva, N. Y., October 11, 1855. 
 I have used your larger Dictionary many years with great satisfaction, 
 and your smaller one I have been in the habit of recommending for the use 
 of pupils. I am much pleased with the edition I have just received. The 
 addition of the synonymes is valuable, and, so far as I have examined, seems 
 to be very aptly done, and the whole work to be very complete for its pur- 
 pose. BENJAMIN HALE. 
 
 From the Rev. C. Collins, D. D., President of Dickinson College. 
 
 Carlisle, Pa., October 5, 1855. 
 . I have to acknowledge the receipt from you of a copy of your " Pro- 
 nouncing, Explanatory, and Synonymous Dictionary of the English Lan- 
 guage." After giving it a somewhat careful examination, I take pleasure in 
 saying that it seems to me to fulfil the conditions of a common reference 
 Dictionary more perfectly than any one now before the public. I shall rec- 
 ommend to the college bookseller to order it for the use of the students. 
 
 C. COLLINS. 
 
 From the Rev. Wm. A. Smith, D. D., President of Randolph Macon College, Va. 
 Randolph Macon College, Ya., October 18, 1855. 
 I have the pleasure to acknowledge the receipt of your small Dictionary. 
 I embraced an early opportunity to examine it, and am happy to state that 
 your additions to the plan usually pursued in works of the kind are decided 
 improvements, greatly increasing the practical value of a Dictionary. 
 
 WM. A. SMITH. 
 
 From S. H. Taylor, LL, D., Principal of Phillips' Academy, Andover, Mass. 
 
 Andover, Mass., October 5, 1855. 
 It seems to me to combine unusual excellences, and as a manual for gen- 
 eral use, and for high schools and colleges, it has no superior. The atten- 
 tion given to the principal synonymes of the language is a new and valuable 
 feature. I am confident that the Dictionary will meet the high expecta- 
 tions of the public S. H. TAYLOR. 
 
 
Worcester's Series of Dictionaries 
 
 CONSIST OF 
 
 I. The Universal and Critical Dictionary. 
 II. The Explanatory and Synonymous Dictionary. 
 
 III. The Comprehensive and Pronouncing Dictionary. 
 
 IV. The Elementary Dictionary. 
 Y. The Primary Dictionary. 
 
 The Publishers of these popular works have the pleasure to announce that the 
 
 ROYAL QITAKTO DICTIONARY, 
 
 BEAUTIFULLY ILLUSTRATED, 
 
 is in preparation, and educated men, who have examined the proof-sheets, unite 
 in declaring that it will be the fullest, most accurate and comprehensive Diction- 
 ary of the English Language ever published. 
 
 "WAIT, AND GET THE BEST." 
 
 Worcester's Dictionaries are used in the Public Schools of the cities of 
 Boston, New York, Baltimore, Washington, D. C, New Orleans, St. Louis, Chi- 
 cago, Cleveland, Buffalo, Rochester, Schenectady, and in many other of the prin- 
 cipal cities and towns in the United States. The unprincipled attacks made by 
 selfish and interested parties upon the character of Dr. Worcester and his Diction- 
 aries have only attracted the attention of the public to the merits of his works ; 
 and the sale of them is rapidly increasing in every part of the country. 
 
 Dr. Worcester has done more to establish the accuracy of pronunciation than 
 any other English Lexicographer. In all disputable cases, he has not been content 
 with expressing his own preference, but by the citation of the most distinguished 
 authorities, he has left the student the means of determining for himself. 
 
 Every practical teacher knows that one of the principal uses of a Dictionary in 
 a school room is to determine the proper pronunciation of words. Most of the 
 dictionaries used are defective in this particular. Take, for instance, the following 
 classes of words in Webster's Dictionary: bait, bear; date, dare ; fate, fare; 
 hate, hare; late, lair ; mate, mare ; pate, pare ; rate, rare; wait,toare, &c. In all 
 these words Webster improperly gives but one sound of a, viz., the long sound as 
 heard in. fate. The absurdity of this, as well as the impossibility of following his 
 directions, may readily be seen by pronouncing the foregoing class of words in 
 rapid succession. Webster makes no distinction between the sounds of e in merit 
 and mercy; merry and merchant ; and of u in hurry and hurdle. _ His errors, which 
 extend in similar classes of words throughout all his dictionaries, arise from his 
 imperfect knowledge of the power of the letter r. A moment's reflection will show 
 that this letter has a peculiar influence on both the long and the short sound of 
 the vowel which precedes it, in a monosyllable, or in an accented syllable, unless 
 the succeeding syllable begins with a vowel sound; as, care, fare, pare, mercy, 
 merchant, hurdle, &c. When the succeeding syllable begins with a vowel sound,^ 
 the sound of the preceding vowel is not modified ; as, merit, merry, hurry, &c. 
 
 Dr. Worcester has wisely made a distinction in marking the sounds of these 
 classes of words ; and for this and other excellences, his works are commended by 
 the best scholars in the country. 
 
 Teachers have only to examine his Dictionaries, and they will be sure to 
 recommend the use of them. 
 
 HICKLING, SWAN & BROWN, 
 
 No. 131 WASHINGTON STBEET, BOSTON. 
 
mimmsssBSBm 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 BERKELEY 
 
 Return to desk from which borrowed. 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 l7 n52w \m 
 
 
 ||IU 
 
 7 1971 
 
 
 TO 
 
 jN& 
 
 y&kXS 
 
 AY 1 ? 
 
 LOAM AHC 
 
 JUL 3 1 1954 
 
 - FEB ll1969 03| 
 RECEIVED 
 
 tOAH CEP 1 ". 
 
 LD 21-95m-ll,'50(2877 8 16)476 
 
LLC. BERKELEY LIBRARIES 
 
 M180436 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY