llliiillifliiin 
 
 9 a_ ^B bgb fl.,q 
 
GROSS LITERARY FRAUD EXPOSED; 
 
 RELATINa TO THE PUBLICATION OF 
 
 WORCESTER'S DICTIONARY 
 
 IN LONDON: 
 
 TOGETHER WITH 
 
 THREE APPENDIXES; 
 
 INCLUDING 
 
 THE ANSWER OF S. CONVERSE TO AN ATTACK ON HIM 
 BY ]VIESSRS G. & C. MERRIAM. 
 
 P 
 
 ^ 
 
 . " BOSTON: 
 
 NKS, HICKLING, AND SWAN 
 1854. 
 
(^ 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
 CAHBRIDax: 
 HOTCALF AKD COMPANY, STEEEOTTPERS AND PBINTBBS. 
 
 \ 
 
Cambridge, September 30, 1853. 
 Messrs. Jenks, Hickling, & Swan: — 
 
 Gentlemen, — The fact that an edition of my " Univer- 
 sal and Critical Dictionary of the English Language," with 
 a false title and a garbled and mutilated preface^ has been 
 published in London, has recently come to my knowl- 
 edge ; and I have had some correspondence on the subject 
 with Mr. Wilkins, of the late firm of Wilkins, Carter, 
 & Co., the original publishers of the Dictionary. As you 
 are now the publishers of it, I send this correspondence 
 to you, together with a correction of some false state- 
 ments relating to myself, which the publishers of Dr. 
 Webster's Dictionary have made and circulated very 
 widely, with a request that you will get these matters 
 printed and put in circulation, in order that this literary 
 fraud may be exposed. I am sorry to have occasion to 
 make such a request; but it seems proper that some- 
 thing should be done; and it is my wish that such a 
 course may be adopted as may tend to set matters right, 
 as far as the case admits. 
 
 I do not wish any thing ever to be said or done, in order 
 to promote the circulation of my literary publications, 
 that is not in strict accordance with truth and propriety, 
 or that can give reasonable offence to any one. The 
 world is wide enough, and the demand for useful books 
 sufiicient, to give employment to all literary laborers, who 
 make use of proper means for preparing books which .will 
 promote the improvement of society ; and I see no good 
 reason for hpstile contention between those who make 
 such books, or between those who sell them. 
 Respectfully yours, 
 * ' J. E. Worcester. 
 
 
 y:^c 
 
LITERARY FRAUD EXPOSED. 
 
 Cambridge, Angost 24, 1853. 
 
 John H. Wilkins, Esq.: — 
 
 Dear Sir, — Not long since I saw, in an English 
 journal, an advertisement of a Dictionary published in 
 . London, in the title of which my name was connected 
 with that of Dr. Noah Webster, in a way that I did not 
 understand, and could not account for ; and in the Boston 
 Daily Advertiser, of the 5th instant, there is a communica- 
 tion with the signature of G. & C. Merriam, the publishers 
 of Webster's Dictionary, from which the following para- 
 graphs are extracted : — 
 
 " Mr. Worcester having been employed by Dr. Webster 
 or his family, to abridge the American Dictionary of the 
 English Language, some years afterwards, and subse- 
 quently to Dr. Webster's death, in presenting to the pub- 
 lic a Dictionary of his own, of the same size as the 
 Abridgment prepared by him of Webster, says in his 
 Preface, that he * is not aware of having taken a single 
 word, or the definition of a word ' from Webster in the 
 preparation of his work. 
 
 " Now mark this fact. An edition of Worcester's Dic- 
 tionary has recently been published in London, and sought 
 to be pushed there, in which the paragraph we have cited 
 is carefully suppressed, and is advertised as * Webster's 
 Critical and Pronouncing Dictionary, &c., enlarged and 
 revised by Worcester.' On the title-page Webster is 
 1* 
 
6 
 
 pljaced first, in. large type, and Worcester follows in an- 
 othei' line in srti^lter type ; and the book is lettered on the 
 bacit: *• ^^S^eb'stier's an.d Worcester's Dictionary ' ! " 
 
 Now this was new and surprising to me ; for I did not 
 know that my Dictionary had been published in London. 
 Since seeing this statement, I have called three or four 
 times at your office in Boston to make inquiry of you 
 respecting the matter ; but did not find you in till yester- 
 day. I had, however, seen Mr. Rice, who was lately con- 
 nected with you in business, and he told me that the 
 Dictionary had been published in London, and that he 
 believed you had a copy of the London edition. On 
 seeing you yesterday, you said that you had a copy, and 
 that you would send it to me. I have this morning re- 
 ceived it ; and I am astonished to find that the title is as 
 follows : — 
 
 " A Universal^ Critical^ and Pronouncing Dictionary of 
 the English Language: including Scientific Terms, com' 
 piled from the materials of Noah Webster, LL. D. By 
 Joseph E. Worcester. — JVew Edition, to which are added 
 WaUcer^s Key to the Pronunciation of Classical and 
 Scripture Proper Names, enlarged and improved; a Pro- 
 nouncing Vocabulary of Modern Geographical Names; 
 and an English Grammar. London: Henry G. Bohn, 
 4, 5, and 6 York Street, Covent Garden." 
 
 The true title of my Dictionary is as follows : — 
 
 " A Universal and Critical Dictionary of the English 
 Language: to which are added Walker's Key to the 
 Pronunciation of Classical and Scripture Proper Names, 
 much enlarged and improved; and a Pronouncing Vocab- 
 ulary of Modern Geographical Names. By Joseph E. 
 Worcester." 
 
 I find that the Preface is garbled and much altered; 
 and several omissions are *made. One of the matters 
 omitted in it is the following statement, viz. : — " With 
 respect to Webster^ s Dictionary, which the compiler several 
 
 •• 
 
years since abridged^ he is not aware of having" taken a 
 single wordj or the definition of a word^from that work in 
 the preparation of this." 
 
 I do not know that the truth of this statement has ever 
 been explicitly denied, and I do know that it has never 
 been disproved. You will see how inconsistent — how 
 false and injurious — is the statement in the Title of the 
 London edition, — " compiled from the materials of Noah 
 Webster" I The person who remodelled the Title and 
 Preface of the London edition, must have known that he 
 was contradicting the statement which I made in my 
 Preface; and the publishers of Webster's Dictionary are 
 endeavoring to make use of this dishonest proceeding 
 of the London publisher to my injury, and in such a 
 manner as no honorable or honest men would do, if they 
 knew the facts in the case. 
 
 I would now ask, what is to be done in this matter ? 
 You will not suppose that I ought to feel satisfied to have 
 it remain uncontradicted ; yet I am very averse to appear 
 before the public in any controversy relating to a publica- 
 tion of my own. You are aware, as well as other per- 
 sons who have been concerned in publishing works which 
 I have prepared for the press, that my habit has been to 
 leave my books to the management of the publishers, 
 without defending them from any attack, or doing any 
 thing to injure any works that may come in competi- 
 tion with them ; nor do I wish ever to deviate from this 
 course. 
 
 As I have no pecuniary interest in the London edition of 
 the Dictionary, I think I am entitled to be protected from 
 being injured by it in this manner ; and as you have made 
 the contract, if there has been one made, with the London 
 publisher, I must call your attention to the subject ; and 
 I do sa in full confidence that you will wish to have the 
 matter set right, and have no wrong done to any one. 
 Truly yours, 
 
 J. E. Worcester. 
 
Boston, August 31, 1853. 
 
 Mr. Worcester : — 
 
 Dear Sir, — Your favor of the 24th instant came duly 
 to hand, but I have not had leisure until now to an- 
 swer it. 
 
 Early in 1847, Mr. James Brown, of the firm of Little, 
 Brown, & Co. of this city, was about to visit Europe ; 
 and'we (Wilkins, Carter, & Co.) authorized him to nego- 
 tiate for the publication of your Dictionary in England if 
 he had opportunity, and particularly with Mr. Bohn, from 
 whom we had received an application for the privilege. 
 Subsequently Mr. Brown informed us of an offer he had 
 received from Mr. Bohn, and furnished us with the letter 
 from Mr. Bohn to him; to the proposals in which we 
 acceded, and in October of that year shipped the plates 
 to London. 
 
 I remember perfectly well that we felt some doubt 
 in regard to the validity of a contract made on paper 
 not bearing a stamp; but we supposed Mr. Bohn was 
 an honorable man, and would not repudiate it. 
 
 After shipping the plates we heard nothing from Mr. 
 Bohn until the next year, when we became somewhat 
 impatient of the delay, and we wrote him urging him to 
 go on in fulfilment of his agreement. "We received an 
 answer stating that he was sorry the plates had been sent. 
 And we learned that he had become interested in the 
 sale of Webster's Dictionary. Several letters passed be- 
 tween him and us, but we were unable to induce him to 
 fulfil his agreement. 
 
 In the autumn of 1849, more than two years after the 
 plates were sent, Mr. Carter went to Europe for his health, 
 — intending to see Mr. Bohn and come to some arrange- 
 ment with him. But his health did not allow of this. In 
 the summer or autumn of 1850, Mr. Bohn wrote us asking 
 our lowest terms to sell the plates, which I named, — 
 never dreaming that any other use would be made of 
 them than that of publishing your Dictionary under your 
 
9 
 
 name. He accepted my offer, and the transfer of the 
 plates was effected. 
 
 On Mr. Carter's return from Italy, in the summer of 
 1851, he brought home a copy of his (Mr. Bohn's) bare- 
 faced publication. You can judge of our surprise, I might 
 say amazement, at the audacity of this literary fraud. 
 We felt very uncomfortable about it, but did not see 
 that any thing could be done to remedy the evil. Mr. 
 Carter was never afterwards able to attend to business, 
 and the subject of this publication was never further con- 
 sidered between us. 
 
 You may well think it strange that I did not at the 
 time call your attention to the subject of this literary 
 imposition ; but as I did not see any means of remedying 
 the evil, and knowing that the condition of your eyes was 
 such that you could make but little if any use of them, I 
 did not feel in haste to trouble you with a knowledge of 
 it. I have, however, never seen any notice of this spuri- 
 ous publication in this country, until you called my at- 
 tention to one. Had any such notice met my eye, I should 
 certainly have deemed it my duty to call your attention 
 to the volume brought home by Mr. Carter. 
 
 Had I leisure to narrate the details of our business 
 transaction with Mr. Bohn, I think it would appear to 
 be, on his part, as commercially dishonorable, as this liter- 
 ary enterprise is fraudulent and disgraceful. 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 John H. Wilkins. 
 
 In my letter to Mr. Wilkins, I say, in relation to the 
 statement that " I am not aware of having taken a single 
 word, or the definition of a word, from Dr. Webster's Dic- 
 tionary, in the preparation of mine," that " I do not know 
 that the truth of this statement had ever been explicitly 
 denied." But the title of the London edition states that 
 my Dictionary was " compiled from the materials of Noah 
 Webster " ! — and the publishers of Webster's Dictionary 
 
10 
 
 seem to insinuate very strongly, in the paragraphs which 
 I have quoted, as they have sdso done on other occasions, 
 that the statement is not correct. But if there is a word 
 or the definition of a word that was, in the preparation 
 of my Dictionary, taken from that of Dr. Webster, I am 
 ignorant of the fact. Having had some knowledge of Dr. 
 Webster's readiness to complain of improper use being 
 made of his work,* I resolved that, in preparing my Diction- 
 ary , I would forego all the benefit which might be derived 
 from the use of the materials found in his work, so that 
 I might not give the least occasion for an accusation of 
 the kind, and might be enabled to make the statement ivhich 
 I did make, and which I challenge any one to disprove. 
 
 Having felt it incumbent on me to expose the dis- 
 honest proceedings of the London publisher, it may not 
 be improper for me to notice some other false statements, 
 designed to injure me, which the publishers of Webster's 
 Dictionary have repeatedly made and widely circulated. 
 As these statements have not been publicly contradicted, 
 they have doubtless done me injury in the minds of many. 
 
 The quotation above made from their communication 
 to the Boston Daily Advertiser begins thus : — " Mr. 
 Worcester having been employed by Dr. Webster or 
 his family to abridge the American Dictionary of the 
 English Language " ; — and in their Advertising Pamphlet 
 they say, " Mr. Worcester was employed by Dr. Webster 
 or his family to prepare an Abridgment of the American 
 Dictionary," — accompanying the statement with injurious 
 reflections. As this statement has been so often made 
 in a form designed to do me injury, and as it is doubtless 
 true that many persons may have been made to believe 
 that there was something t^ong or dishonorable on my 
 part, I think it proper that the public should have the 
 means of knowing the facts in the case. 
 
 * See Appendix. 
 
11 
 
 The statement that I " was employed by Dr. Webster 
 or his family to abridge the American Dictionary," is 
 void of truth. The gentleman who employed me was 
 Sherman Converse, Esq., the original publisher of Dr. 
 Webster's Dictionary. So far was the task from being 
 one of my own seeking, that I declined two applications 
 that were made to me to undertake it, and one reason was 
 the fear that it would bring me into some difficulty or em- 
 barrassment in relation to the " Comprehensive Diction- 
 ary," which I was then preparing ; but the matter was urged 
 upon me by Mr. Converse, after I had stated my objec- 
 tions. If any one shall say that I committed an error in 
 judgment in finally consenting to make the abridgment, I 
 shall certainly, on that point, not conteAd with him, for 
 it has been to me a matter of much regret that I did so, 
 as may readily be believed from what has taken place. 
 But I am conscious of having acted in good faith in the 
 matter, and of not having deserved ill treatment from Dr. 
 Webster or his friends. 
 
 After seeing the publication above referred to in the 
 Daily Advertiser, I sent a copy of it to Mr. Converse, 
 (whom I had seen but once, I believe, for more than fifteen 
 years,) accompanying it with a letter, in which I requested 
 him to give a brief statement of the facts in the case ; and 
 1 received from him the following letter : — 
 
 Newburgh, N. Y., August 31, 1853. 
 
 Mr. Worcester: — 
 
 Dear Sir, — Having been absent from New York for 
 several weeks, I have but just received your favor of the 
 12th instant, with a copy of the Boston Daily Advertiser 
 accompanying it. I have read the article in the Adver- 
 tiser, in which your name is coupled with that of the 
 octavo abridgment of Mr. Webster's larger work. Authors 
 are sometimes sensitive, but really I do not think you 
 have much occasion for anxiety in regard to your repu- 
 tation, either personal or literary. But since you ask me 
 
12 
 
 to say whether I "know of any thing wrong or dis- 
 honorable on your part in relation to that Abridgment," 
 I answer, Nothing- whatever. 
 
 The simple history of the whole matter is this. I had 
 published Mr. Webster's great Dictionary, and presented 
 it to the public. The labor had cost from two to three 
 years of the best portion of my business life, without any 
 adequate remuneration. For this I looked to an Abridg- 
 ment, and such future editions of the larger work as the 
 demand might authorize. But if I published an Abridg- 
 ment, I wished to stereotype it, and, as a business man, 
 I desired it to be made by an able hand, and with some 
 variations, of minor importance, from the original. On 
 conferring with Mr. Webster upon the subject, he stated 
 two objections to my views. He felt that he had not the 
 physical power left to perform the labor in a reasonable 
 time, and that he could not preserve his literary consist- 
 ency and be responsible for the variations which I de- 
 sired. Yet, as I had published the great work after it had 
 been declined, and that not very graciously, by all the 
 principal booksellers on both sides of the Atlantic, he was 
 willing that I should derive any remuneration I might an- 
 ticipate from an octavo abridgment. With these views 
 and feelings, he consented to commit the subject to the 
 mutual discretion of Professor Goodrich and myself; 
 setting a limit, however, beyond which variations should 
 not be made ; and that he might not incur the least re- 
 sponsibility for such variations as the abridgment might 
 contain, I understood him to say, he should give the copy- 
 right to another. 
 
 As soon as Mr. Webster had made his decision, which 
 was probably a sacrifice of feeling on his part to do me 
 a favor, I applied to you to undertake the labor. You de- 
 clined, and so decidedly that I made a visit to Cambridge 
 for the sole purpose of urging your compliance with my 
 request. You assured me that you could not undertake 
 to abridge Mr. Webster's Dictionary, for the very good 
 
13 
 
 reason that you had then abready made considerable prog- 
 ress in preparing a Dictionary of your own. At the 
 same time, you showed me a Synopsis of words of dis- 
 puted pronunciation, with the respective authorities. But 
 the result of our interview was an agreement on your part 
 to abridge the Dictionary for me, and to allow me to use 
 your Synopsis, with the express reservation of the right to 
 use it as your own, for your own Dictionary. And I must 
 say that my persuasive powers were very severely taxed 
 in securing the desired result. 
 
 I returned to New Haven, and subsequently called on 
 you in company with Mr. Goodrich, when the matter of 
 variations was settled, and you entered upon the labor; 
 and I am free to say you performed it to my entire satis- 
 faction, and I believe to that of Professor Goodrich also, 
 for I never heard an intimation to the contrary. 
 I am very faithfully yours, 
 
 S. Converse. 
 
 It may not perhaps be improper for me to give brief 
 extracts from letters which I received from Dr. Webster 
 and Professor Goodrich, vety soon after they had been in- 
 formed that I "had consented to undertake the abridg- 
 ment." 
 
 The following is an extract from a letter of Dr. Webster 
 to me, dated New Haven, July 27, 1828 : — 
 
 « Sir, — Mr. Converse has engaged you to abridge my 
 Dictionary, and has requested me to forward you the 
 copy of the first volume. This was unexpected to me; 
 but under the circumstances, I have consented to it, and 
 shall send the copy." 
 
 The following is an extract from a letter of Professor 
 Goodrich to me, dated Yale CoUege, July 28, 1828: — 
 
 " My dear Sir, — Mr. Converse, who was here on Satur- 
 day, informed us that you had consented to undertake the 
 abridgment of Mr. Webster's Dictionary. This gives me 
 2 
 
14 
 
 and Mr. Webster's other friends the highest satisfaction ; 
 for there is no man in the United States, as you know 
 from conversation with me, who would be equally ac- 
 ceptable." 
 
 The publishers of Webster's Dictionary, in order to 
 make it appear that I have been inconsistent with myself 
 in relation to orthography, say : " In 1827, an edition of 
 Todd's Johnson's Dictionary, 1 vol. 8vo, was published in 
 Boston, of which Mr. Worcester was the American editor. 
 Having the entire control of the matter, he retained the k 
 in words terminating in c, as musick, physick, almanack, 
 &c., and the u in honour, favour, authour, and that large 
 class of words." And they say further, in relation to 
 orthography : " Worcester, not guided by any system or 
 principles of his own, but seeking to fall in with the con- 
 stantly changing practice of the hour," &c. 
 
 "Johnson's English Dictionary, as improved by Todd 
 and abridged by Chalmers, with Walker's Pronouncing 
 Dictionary combined," first published in Boston in 1827, 
 was edited by me on principles fixed upon by the publish- 
 ers and some literary gentlemen, who were their coun- 
 sellors in the matter ; and of these counsellors, the one who 
 did the most in the business was the late learned and 
 much respected Mr. John Pickering. It was made my 
 duty to conform to the principles established for my guid- 
 ance; and I had no ^^ control of the matter. ^^ The Diction- 
 ary was to contain Johnson's orthography, and Walker'^s 
 pronunciation. I was so far from defending the use of the 
 final k in music, physic, &c., that I said in relation to it, in 
 my Preface to that Dictionary : " The general usage, both 
 in England and America, is at present so strongly in favor 
 of its omission, that the retaining of it seems now to 
 savor of affectation or singuTarity." 
 
 As the orthography of this Dictionary was that of John- 
 son, so th^ orthography of the Abridgment of Webster's 
 Dictionary made by me, was that of Webster, with some 
 
variations which were decided upon by "his representa- 
 tive," and over which I had no control. The only orthog- 
 raphy for which I am responsible is that found in my 
 own Dictionaries. 
 
 These publishers further charge me with "adopting 
 several of Dr. Webster's peculiarities, omitting the k and 
 w," &c. I am not aware of having adopted any of Dr. 
 Webster's "peculiarities" relating either to orthography 
 or pronunciation; and if any such can be found in my 
 Dictionary, I should certainly not regard them as adding 
 to the value of the work. 
 
 With respect to the omission of k in music, public, &c., 
 it may be stated, in addition to what is said above, that it 
 was omitted in that class of words in Martin's English 
 Dictionary, published in 1749, before that of Johnson ; and 
 it has been omitted in many other Dictionaries published 
 since ; and the omission of u in honor, favor, &c. was 
 countenanced in the Dictionaries of Ash and Entick, pub- 
 lished long before that of Dr. Webster. The fact that this 
 orthography was the prevailing usage with the best authors 
 in this country was a good reason for adopting it. 
 
 There are other falsehoods relating to me, contained in 
 the Advertising Pamphlet of these publishers, which I pass 
 by without particular notice. 
 
 With respect to the manner in which my Dictionary 
 has generally been noticed in Reviews and Literary Jour- 
 nals, so far as I have seen such notices, I have reason to 
 be entirely satisfied. There is, however, an article upon it 
 in the American Review, published in New York, (written, 
 as I have been informed, by a Professor at New Haven, at 
 the time when the new edition of Dr. Webster's Diction- 
 ary was preparing at that place, and who assisted the 
 Editor in preparing that edition,) which is in remarkable 
 contrast to any other review of the work that I have seen. 
 The reputed author of this article has been employed by 
 the publishers of Dr. Webster's Dictionary as a public 
 
16 
 
 advocate of that work; and his notice of mine is so 
 much to their purpose, that they have seen fit to insert 
 a great part of it in their Advertising Pamphlet. Con- 
 sidering the circumstances under which this article was 
 written, and the manifest object of it, such of the alleged 
 imperfections in the Dictionary as are founded in truth, 
 are not greater or more numerous than might reasonably 
 be expected. 
 
 As a specimen of the candor and truthfulness of the 
 writer of this review, I quote a part of what he says in 
 relation to what the author of the Dictionary has done 
 with respect to words differently pronounced by different 
 orthoepists : — " He has," says the reviewer, " collected 
 and attached to every important word, every method of 
 pronouncing it that has ever been recommended by a 
 writer, whether great or small, conceited or well-informed, 
 judicious or affected." 
 
 Now the following is the true statement of what is done, 
 in the Dictionary, in relation to words differently pro- 
 nounced by different orthoepists, as may be seen on page 
 xxiv. : — " The English authorities most frequently cited 
 in this volume are Sheridan, Walker, Perry, Jones, Enfield, 
 Fulton and Knight, Jameson, Knowles, Smart, and E-eid, 
 all of whom are authors of Pronouncing Dictionaries. In 
 addition to these, various other English lexicographers 
 and orthoepists are frequently brought forward, as Bailey, 
 Johnson, Kenrick, Ash, Dyche, Barclay, Entick, Scott, 
 Nares, Maunder, Crabb, and several others; besides the 
 distinguished American lexicographer. Dr. Webster." 
 
 There has been, as I have understood, considerable 
 controversy relating to the Dictionaries in the newspapers 
 and literary journals, particularly in the city of New York ; 
 but it took place when I had little use of my eyesight, and 
 I have seen little of it. While my Dictionary was passing 
 through the press, one of my eyes became blind by a cata- 
 
17 
 
 ract, and not a great while after, the sight of the other 
 eye was lost in the same way ; and though my eyesight 
 has been in some measure restored, yet for a great portion 
 of the time since its failure, I have been able to do little 
 or nothing as a student; so that it has been impossible 
 for me to make such a revision of my different publica- 
 tions, as I might otherwise have done. 
 
 The manner in which my literary productions have 
 generally been noticed by the press and patronized by the 
 public, calls for the expression of gratitude much more 
 than for complaint. It is with great reluctance that I 
 have been induced to appear before the public in a 
 manner that may savor so much of egotism; but the 
 base conduct of the London publisher especially seemed 
 to render it necessary that something should be done; 
 and 1 trust that nothing which has here been said in my 
 defence will be found inconsistent with truth or propriety. 
 I have acted wholly on the defensive, and I have no dis- 
 position "to dip my pen in gall," or to make a hostile 
 attack on any one, or to speak disparagingly of any pub- 
 lication that may come in competition with mine. I 
 have not, so far as I know, ever seen or ever injured 
 any one of the persons on whose course I have made 
 strictures. Whether their consciences are at ease in this 
 matter or not, is a question that concerns themselves 
 more than it does me. For myself, I would rather be 
 the subject than the perpetrator of such falsehood and 
 
 wrong. 
 
 J. E. WORCESTER. 
 
1\ 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 As the question respecting the use made of " the materials of Dr. 
 Webster " has become one of so much importance, I have thought, 
 on further reflection, that it is proper the public should have the 
 means of better understanding the reasons which induced me to take 
 the course which I did, in preparing my " Universal and Critical 
 Dictionary." My course, which was known to some of my literary 
 friends, was objected to ; for I was told that, by totally abstaining 
 from such use of Dr. Webster's Dictionary, I deprived myself of ad- 
 vantages for improving my own, which I might, to some extent, 
 without impropriety, avail myself of ; but I was sure, from what had 
 already taken place, that I could not make such use, to a degree 
 that would be of any benefit to me, without subjecting myself to 
 such reproach as would be very unpleasant. I therefore merely 
 cited Dr. Webster's authority in relation to words differently pro- 
 nounced by different orthoepists. 
 
 The necessity, in order to avoid reproach, of my taking the 
 course I did in relation to the Universal Dictionary, must be sufli- 
 ciently obvious to all who know what took place with respect to my 
 previous work, entitled the Comprehensive Dictionary, which was 
 first published in 1830. In November, 1834, there appeared in the 
 "Worcester Palladium," (a newspaper published at Worcester, 
 Mass.,) at the instigation, as I was informed, of an agent for Dr. 
 Webster's Dictionaries, an attack upon me, in which the following 
 language was used : — " ^ gross plagiarism has been committed hy 
 Mr. J. E. Worcester on the literary property of Noah Webster, 
 
 Esq Mr. Worcester, after having become acquainted with Mr. 
 
 Webster^s plan, immediately set about appropriating to his own 
 benefit the valuable labors, acquisitions, and productions of Mr. 
 
 Webster If we had a statute which could fix its grasp on those 
 
 who pilfer the products of mind, as readily as our laws embrace the 
 common thief, Mr. Worcester would hardly escape with a light mulct.^^ 
 
 At this time the " Christian Register," published in Boston, was 
 
19 
 
 edited by Professor Sidney Willard, who happened to be as well ac- 
 quainted with my lexicographical labors and the circumstances re- 
 lating to them, as almost any gentleman in the community ; and he 
 answered this (as he styled it) " ferocious assault," in such a manner 
 as he thought proper, before I had any knowledge that such an as- 
 sault had been made. In order to sustain his accusation, the editor 
 of the Palladium enumerated twenty-one words, which he said " are 
 found in none of the English Dictionaries in common use, and were 
 undoubtedly taken from Webster's." I thought proper to send to 
 the editor an answer to his attack. In a succeeding number of the 
 Palladium, there appeared a short letter to the editor from Dr. Web- 
 ster, dated New Haven, December 11th, 1834, in which he said, 
 '* That he [Worcester] borrowed some words and definitions, I sup- 
 pose to be proved by the fact that they are found in no British Dic- 
 tionary ; at least in none that I have seen." Subsequently there 
 appeared, in the Palladium, a letter from Dr. Webster, addressed to 
 me, dated January 25th, 1835. This was followed by an answer 
 from me, dated February 6th. Two more letters from Dr. Webster 
 followed, together with my ans^vers. The editor of the Christian 
 Register transferred the whole correspondence into his paper. 
 
 By perusing all that appeared in these two newspapers, the Palla- 
 dium and the Register, the reader would have the means of judging 
 of the merits of the case, and would be able to understand something 
 of the circumstances and reasons which induced me to take the 
 course of abstaining entirely from the use of the materials found in 
 Dr. Webster's Dictionary. But as it might tax the patience of the 
 reader too much to place before him all this matter (which may be 
 seen by examining the files of those newspapers), I will now insert 
 Dr. Webster's first letter to me, dated January 25, together with my 
 answer. This letter contains Dr. Webster's chief specifications 
 against me, — a list of 121 words, " which," he said, *'^ prima facie, 
 would seem to be taken from his Dictionary." In his subsequent 
 letters, he did not specify any more words as borrowed from him ; 
 and the only word specified, with respect to which he accused me of 
 " adding his definitions,''^ was the word clapboard ; and in that, 1 
 may say, he succeeded no better in his evidence, than with respect 
 to the charge of borrowing the 121 words. The reader will please 
 to compare the specifications and the evidence with the charges 
 against me, quoted from the Worcester Palladium, and characterize 
 the whole transaction as he may see fit. 
 
20 
 
 MR. WEBSTER'S LETTER 
 From tlie Worcester Palladium. 
 
 New Haven, January 25, 1836. 
 
 Mr. J. E. Worcester : — 
 
 Sir, — Before I saw, in the Worcester Palladium, a charge 
 against you of committing plagiarism on my Dictionary, I had not 
 given much attention to your Dictionary. Nor have I now read and 
 compared with mine one tenth part of the work. But in running 
 over it, in a cureory manner, I have collected the following words, 
 which, prima facie, would seem to have been taken from my Dic- 
 tionary : — 
 
 Abatable 
 
 Hydrant 
 
 Olivaceous 
 
 Assignor 
 
 Irredeemable 
 
 Ophiologist 
 
 Augean 
 
 Instanter 
 
 Ophiology 
 
 Bateau 
 
 Isothermal 
 
 Philosophism 
 
 Cartrut 
 
 Johannes 
 
 Phosphoresce 
 
 Caucus 
 
 Judiciary (noun) 
 
 Phosphorescence 
 
 Chowder 
 
 Kumiss 
 
 Phosphorescent 
 
 Congregationalist 
 
 Land-office 
 
 Prayerful 
 
 Congressional 
 
 Lapstone 
 
 Prayerless 
 
 Clapboard 
 
 Landslip 
 
 Promisee 
 
 Dell 
 
 Leach 
 
 Pappoose 
 
 Dutiable 
 
 Leachtub 
 
 Pistareen 
 
 Deliquesce 
 
 Magnetize 
 
 Pledgee 
 
 Digraph 
 
 Mazology 
 
 Postfix 
 
 Emphasize 
 
 Mishna 
 
 Postnote 
 
 Effloresce 
 
 Moccason 
 
 Raca 
 
 Educational 
 
 Monitorial 
 
 Ramadan 
 
 Effervescent 
 
 Muscovado 
 
 Razee 
 
 Electioneer 
 
 Muskrat, or 
 
 Redemptioner 
 
 Farrow 
 
 Musquash 
 
 Rhabdology 
 
 Fructescence 
 
 Notarial 
 
 Rock-crystal 
 
 Fracas 
 
 Neap (of a cart, ^c.) 
 
 Roil, roily 
 
 Glazing 
 
 Neptunian * 
 
 Repealable 
 
 Governmental 
 
 Outlay 
 
 Safety-valve 
 
 Grandjury 
 
 Obsidian 
 
 Semiannual 
 
 Graphite 
 
 Obstetrics 
 
 Sectional 
 
 Griddle 
 
 Ochlocracy 
 
 Sabianism 
 
2fi 
 
 Saltrheum Succotash Tuffoon 
 
 Savings-bank Selectman Uranology 
 
 Scorify Sparse Varioloid 
 
 Scow Sou Vapor-bath 
 
 Sheepshead Souvenir Vermivorous 
 
 Spry Suffix, n. (J* v. Vishna 
 
 Squirm Tirade Voltaism 
 
 Spinning-jenny Tenderloin Volcanist 
 
 Spinning-wheel Teraphim Waffle 
 
 Seraskier Test, v. Whiflletree 
 
 Siderography Thammuz Wilt 
 
 Siderographical Tetaug Winter-kill 
 
 Slump Tomato Zumology. 
 
 I will thank you. Sir, to state in what other Dictionary, except 
 mine, you found the foregoing words, and how many or which you 
 borrowed from mine. 
 
 Your compliance with this request will oblige 
 
 Your humble servant, 
 
 N. Webster. 
 
 MR. WORCESTER'S ANSWER. 
 
 Cambridge, February 6, 1835. 
 Dr. Noah Webster: — 
 
 Sir, — On Friday last I received a copy of the Worcester Palla- 
 dium, in which was found a letter addressed by you to me, contain- 
 ing a list of one hundred and twenty-one words from my Dictionary, 
 " which," you say, ^^ prima facie, would seem to have been taken 
 from your Dictionary " ; and you add that you " will thank me to 
 state in what other Dictionary, except yours, I found the words, and 
 liow many or which I borrowed from yours." 
 
 As a lawyer. Sir, you are aware, that, when an accusation is 
 made, the burden of the proof lies not with the accused, but with 
 the accuser. It might not, therefore, perhaps be improper for me 
 to take the ground that your request is an unreasonable one, and for 
 that reason to decline to comply with it. I will not, however, avail 
 myself of this right. I think I may truly say that in my transac- 
 tions with you, it has been my intention to act uprightly and faith- 
 fully, nor do I know that an individual of those who are most 
 acquainted with the facts (yourself excepted) has a different impres- 
 
sion. In answer to the charges which have appeared against me in 
 the Worcester Palladium, I have already made some statements of 
 facts, none of which, so far as I know, have been, or can be, dis- 
 proved. You now call for something further, and it shall be cheer- 
 fully granted. I feel indeed gratified by the manner in which you 
 have been pleased to make the request ; for though I have no love 
 of contention, yet if I must be dragged into a newspaper controversy 
 in defence of myself in this matter, I should prefer that, of all men 
 in the world, it should be with yourself, writing under your own 
 name. 
 
 You evidently supposed. Sir, that none of the words in your list 
 were to be found in any Dictionary that was published before the 
 appearance of your work ; but I confess I am somewhat surprised 
 at this fact, inasmuch as, from your reputation as a lexicographer, it 
 might naturally be supposed that you were extensively acquainted 
 with works of this sort, and especially with the works which are so 
 well known to all persons who have any just pretensions to much 
 knowledge of this kind of literature, as are the several publications 
 which I shall name. I shall hot go out of my own library, or men- 
 tion any work that I was not in the habit of consulting in preparing 
 my Dictionary. 
 
 Of the one hundred and twenty-one words in your list, eighteen 
 are found in an edition of Bailey's Dictionary, published more than 
 a century ago, and twenty-one in a later edition ; thirty-Jive^ in Ash's 
 Dictionary, published in 1775 ; thirty-seven^ in Todd's Johnson's 
 Dictionary combined with Walker's, edited by J. E. Worcester^ and 
 published before the appearance of yours ; twenty-one^ in Mr. Pick- 
 ering's Vocabulary, published in 1816 ; not less than thirty in the 
 Encyclopaedia Americana, and nearly as many in Brewster's New 
 Edinburgh Encyclopaedia; — and in these several works, upwards of 
 ninety of the words are found, and many of them several times re* 
 peated. I have, in addition to the works above mentioned, about 
 fifty English Dictionaries and Glossaries, in a majority of which I 
 have ascertained that more or less of the words in question are to be 
 found, but I have not leisure, at present, to go through a minute ex- 
 amination of them. 'i 
 
 Of your hundred and twenty-ene words, six or seven are not to be 
 found, so far as I can discover, in your Quarto Dictionary, and one 
 of them is one of those three thousand words which are contained 
 in Todd's Johnson's Dictionary, but are not to be found in your 
 
83 
 
 great work, and which were inserted by me in the octavo abridgment 
 of your Dictionary. Whether any of the others are among the 
 words which were inserted in the abridgment at my suggestion, I 
 cannot say with certainty. 
 
 From the preceding statement, you may perceive, Sir, that your 
 prima facie evidence is sufficiently disposed of, as it respects the 
 most of the words, in question. You inquire " in what other Dic- 
 tionary'''' the words are to be found; and in your former communi- 
 cation to the Worcester Palladium, you were so candid as to say, 
 " that I borrowed some words from you, you suppose to be proved 
 by the fact that they are found in no British Dictionary ; at least in 
 none that you have seen." Now, Sir, it appears to me that it would 
 be quite as sound logic to infer from the above statements, that you 
 have not seen, or at least have not carefully examined, many British 
 Dictionaries, as it would to infer, with respect to a list of words, that 
 because you do not know of their existence in British Dictionaries, 
 they must, therefore, have been taken from yours ; for it appears 
 sufficiently evident that there may be words in British Dictionaries 
 that you are not aware of. You seem also to have overlooked the 
 circumstance that there are, besides Dictionaries, other sources for 
 obtainmg words, which are open to me, as well as to you ; and if my 
 success in finding words out of Dictionaries should bear as good a 
 comparison with yours, as it seems to bear in finding the words in 
 question in them (I only put the case hypothetically), it would not 
 appear very wonderful, if I were able to find the few remaining 
 words without any assistance from your labors. Of the hundred and 
 twenty-one words, you have given authorities, in your Dictionary, 
 for only thirty-nme ; but I can, without going out of my own library, 
 furnish authorities, in all cases different from yours, for upwards of 
 a hundred of them. 
 
 With respect to your inquiry, how many or which words I bor- 
 rowed from you, I have already said that I did not know that a single 
 one was inserted on your sole authority. I do not affirm this to have 
 been the fact, for I am aware that oversights of this sort may hap- 
 pen ; but if any have been so inserted, I sincerely regret the circum- 
 stance, and will engage to erase from my Dictionary every word that 
 you will prove to have been thus inserted. But if I saw in your 
 Dictionary a word with which I was familiar, or which I knew was 
 in established use, or found in respectable authors, I regarded it as a 
 word belongmg, not exclusively to any individual, but to all who 
 
24 
 
 write and speaJt the language, to be used by them on all proper oc- 
 casions, even though it was not to be found in any Dictionary but 
 yours. Take, for example, the very common compound word semi- 
 annual, one in your list, which is not to be found in any of the Eng- 
 lish Dictionaries that I have examined, and you are entitled to the 
 merit, so far as I know, of having been the first to insert this word in 
 a Dictionary ; yet you cannot doubt that I was familiar with this word 
 before your Dictionary was published ; and as I have had occasion 
 to use it repeatedly in my other publications, I thought myself au- 
 thorized to insert it also in my Dictionary. All the words in your 
 own Dictionary were surely to be found in Dictionaries previously 
 published, or had been previously used by other persons, except such 
 as you coined or stamped anew, in order to enrich or embellish the 
 language ; and with regard to all words which owed their origin or 
 new form to you, such as ammony, bridegoom, canail, ieland, 
 naivty, nightmar, prosopopy, &c., it has been my intention scrupu- 
 lously to avoid them, as being your own property, and I have not even 
 inserted them in my Vocabulary of Words of Various Orthography, 
 being willing that you should for ever have the entire and exclusive 
 possession and use of them. There is a considerable number of 
 words in my Dictionary which are not to be found in yours ; yet 
 they have all, I believe, had the sanction of respectable usage : I can 
 therefore claim no exclusive property in them ; and you are perfect- 
 ly welcome, as I have before intimated to you, to have them all in- 
 serted in your Dictionary. 
 
 Should you be disposed. Sir, to pursue the examination of my Dic- 
 tionary further, and honor me with any more of your inquiries, I will 
 attend to them as promptly as my engagements may render it con- 
 venient. 
 
 Having paid such attention to your request as my engagements 
 have permitted, and answered your inquiry, in some measure, I 
 trust, to your satisfaction, I would now. Sir, respectfully make a re- 
 quest of you, which is, that you would he so good as to inform me 
 whether the charges against me in the Worcester Palladium were oc- 
 casioned hy any statements made by you, or whether you have ever 
 made, or are now ready to make, any such statements. 
 
 Your compliance with this request will oblige 
 
 Your humble servant, 
 
 J. E. Worcester. 
 
25 
 
 APPENDIX II. 
 
 When the preceding pages were issued from the press, I hoped 
 I should not have occasion to make any addition to them ; but some 
 circumstances have since occurred which seem to render it proper 
 that I should add a second Appendix. 
 
 Soon after the pamphlet was printed, I sent a copy of it to the 
 Rev. Prof. Chauncey A. Goodrich, D.D., Dr. Webster's son-in-law, 
 who acted as his literary representative in relation to the Abridg- 
 ment, and who was the editor of the last edition of Dr. Webster's 
 Dictionary ; and, accompanying the pamphlet, I wrote to Professor 
 Goodrich a letter from which the following is an extract : — 
 
 " It is doubtless true that there are some things stated in the pamphlet 
 that may be unpleasant to some persons ; yet I hope there is nothing said 
 that any one has good reason to complain of; if there is, I shall be glad to 
 have it corrected. In our correspondence, long since, in relation to the 
 Abridgment of Dr. Webster's Dictionary, you expressed great satisfaction 
 with respect to my management of the matter ; and you have never inti- 
 mated to me that you thought I had done any thing wrong or improper, in 
 relation to that work, at the time of performing the labor of abridging it, or 
 since. I cannot doubt that you suppose I have been unjustly censured, and 
 that I have little reason to fear the strictest scrutiny on the subject. I am not 
 aware that my character has suffered in the estimation of those who know 
 best the facts in the case ; though doubtless many have been made to believe 
 the false charges that have been made against me." 
 
 Professor Goodrich in a courteous letter (dated November 2d, 
 1853,) in answer to mine, said, — 
 
 ** It is perfectly true, as you say, that I was entirely satisfied with re- 
 spect to your management in abridging the American Dictionary. I have 
 always spoken, in high terms, of the exactness and delicacy with which you 
 conducted that diflicult concern. / have also always felt and said, that I kncio 
 of no ground whatever for any imputation upon you, as though you had 
 made use of Dr. Webster^s Dictionary in the production of your own. On 
 the contrary y 1 have uniformly stated, that you Jiad acted, in my view, with 
 great delicacy on this subject; and that if any coincidences should be discov- 
 ered between the two works, I had no belief they were intentional or con- 
 scious ones on your part.^^ 
 
 In replying to Professor Goodrich's letter, (Nov. 21,) I said, — 
 
 / 
 
m 
 
 •'I am conscious of having intended to give no reason for any com- 
 plaint, in relation to the use of Dr. Webster's Dictionary; but you 
 must be aware that a very different representation has been widely 
 circulated, and doubtless great numbers have been made to believe it 
 to my injury. With respect to the Messrs. Merriara, I am surprised that 
 you should say, in relation to what they have published respecting me, 
 — ' If they have erred, I am for myself satisfied that they have done it 
 through inadvertence, not by design.' It surely has all the appearance ot 
 * design.' And I would take the liberty to ask you, if persons wholly un- 
 known to you, should publish far and wide, things relating to yourself, 
 equally false and injurious, whether you would not be likely to regard them 
 as unscrupulous men of the world, and not as men who felt it incumbent on 
 them ' to do unto others as they would that others should do unto them ' ? — 
 and whether you would be likely to place them in the latter class, till they 
 were ready to give as extensive a publicity to the reparation, as they had 
 given to the wrong? If you will compare impartially all that they have 
 published in reference to me and my Dictionary, with what my publishers 
 have said, perhaps you may feel, that when they made the complaints [re- 
 lating to my publishers] which you spoke of, you might with propriety, have 
 referred them to Matt. vii. 5, for their consideration and benefit. 
 
 " I do not know but I have borne these false representations with as much 
 patience as could be reasonably expected. I have not heard of any one's 
 expressing the opinion that I have made more complaint than there is good 
 reason for." 
 
 Early in December, 1 received from the Messrs. Merriam, a copy 
 of a new pamphlet, in which, instead of making any reparation, they 
 have added to the " falsehood and wrong," in attempting to defend 
 what they have published ; though I think I may safely say they 
 have not disproved, and that they cannot disprove, a single state- 
 ment that I have made in the preceding pages. I have therefore no 
 occasion to modify any thing that I have said. 
 
 Soon after receiving this pamphlet, I wrote to Mr. Converse in re- 
 lation to one of their false statements, as follows : — 
 
 " December 13, 1853. To Mr. S. Converse : — Dear Sir, I say in my 
 pamphlet, ' The statement that I was employed by Dr. Webster or his 
 family to abridge the American Dictionary is void of truth. This I supposed 
 and still suppose to be strictly true. Is it, or is it not sol You were the 
 only person that I had any thing to do with in undertaking to perform that 
 labor, and I supposed you acted on your own responsibility, as in an affair of 
 your own. The Messrs. Merriam, in their recent pamphlet, say, ' Our state- 
 ment, we submit to you and the public, in its fair intent and spirit, is not 
 void of truth, and you were employed by Dr. Webster or his family, 
 through Mr. C, as their agent, to abridge his Dictionary.' 
 
27 
 
 " Please to inform me, from your own knowledge of the facts, whether 
 my statement is strictly true or not. Yours &c., J. E. Worcester." 
 
 Mr. Converse^s Answer^ dated December 19, 1853. 
 *' To Mr. Worcester : — Dear Sir, You request me to say whether, in 
 negotiating- with you to abridge Mr. Webster's Quarto Dictionary, I acted 
 as agent either of Dr. Webster or his family. My answer is that I acted as 
 agent of no man. My arrangement with Mr. Webster and his family, was 
 permission to make and publish an octavo abridgment of the large work with 
 liberty to include some slight alterations from the original. The alterations 
 were left to the mutual discretion of Professor Goodrich and myself, care- 
 fully restricted within a limit, dictated by Mr. Webster. This point settled, 
 I determined to stereotype the work ; and as the whole responsibility of the 
 undertaking rested on me alone, I could think of but one man to whom I felt 
 willing to confide the important trust of making an abridgment which in- 
 volved a risk so great. Your attainments and pursuits had eminently quali- 
 fied you for the task, and I decided at once to engage your services if possi- 
 ble. Either before or directly after my correspondence with you upon the 
 subject, I intimated my preference and purpose to Professor Goodrich, and 
 received his cordial approval. The risk and expense both of abridging and 
 stereotyping the Octavo Dictionary were exclusively my own. The family 
 of Mr. Webster had no share in either, and I do not know that I ever dis- 
 closed to any member of it the terms of my contract, either with yourself or 
 the type-founders. Yours &c., S. Converse.'* 
 
 In relation to the statement in question, which the Messrs. 
 Merriam have repeatedly made in a way designed to do me injury, 
 and which they still persist in, the reader will see that Mr. Converse 
 fully sustains what I have said, that it is void of truth. 
 
 The Messrs. Merriam in their last pamphlet say, — " We take it 
 for granted, that a person quoting, publishing, and circulating opin- 
 ions and statements made by others, indorses those opinions and 
 statements ; or else, disbelieving them, gives currency to what he 
 knows to be falsehood " ; — and in their pamphlet dated May, 1853, 
 they " publish and circulate " a letter which they say was " recently 
 received from a distinguished teacher in Eastern Massachusetts." 
 They do not give the name of the writer, or of the place of his 
 residence (substituting blank lines, as given below) ; but according to 
 their own statement, they " indorse " its contents. 
 
 The following short extract is a specimen of this letter. 
 
 « yAprU 13,1853. 
 
 " Messrs. G. and C. Mebriam : — 
 
 " Gentlemen, » * • * • About this time or soon after I heard of 
 Worcester's Dictionary. The story came to me thus, viz. : — that Worces- 
 
28 
 
 ter was (U once a pupil and assistant of Webster, and seeing that he, Webster, 
 had taken a step in advance of the age, though not in advance of truth, and 
 also that Walker was 'behind the time,' treacherously went to work, 
 catering to the Walkerian taste of the day, and produced this ' bastard 
 Dictionary.' * • « ♦ • 
 
 " Respectfully, and truly yours. 
 
 I will leave it with the reader to characterize such a course and 
 such language as he may see fit ; — with the single remark, that, so far 
 from having been " a pupil and assistant of Webster," I never saw 
 him to speak with him more than three or four times during his life. 
 
 It is no part of my design to commend my own Dictionary, or to 
 disparage any other ; — but my purpose has been to defend myself 
 against the false charges which have been widely circulated through- 
 out the country, with an intention to do me injury, and which great 
 numbers, as I understand, have been made to believe. 
 
 A part of the correspondence between Dr. Webster and myself 
 has been given in the preceding pages ; and I have been advised to 
 bring forward the whole of it, which would probably not be desired 
 by the friends of Dr. Webster ; and I might add other, things relative 
 to the subject ; but I wish to do nothing more than the case would 
 seem to require. I would have it understood that I do not shrink 
 from the strictest scrutiny in this matter. I will not now go into 
 the inquiry whether, in the preparation of the last edition of Dr. 
 Webster's Dictionary, an abstinence from the use of mine was ob- 
 served equal to that which I practised in relation to Webster's. 
 Greater liberty than I used may have been taken without causing 
 any complaint from me. 
 
 As the matter now stands, I think I may boldly ask any one who 
 has taken pains to understand the subject, whether in relation to 
 Webster's Dictionary, from first to last, after all that has been said 
 and done, there has been a single point of the slightest importance 
 established against me ? — whether I have not been grossly injured 
 by false representations without having given the least provocation ? 
 — and whether there was ever kno^n a grave charge to be made 
 more completely destitute of support by evidence, or less creditable 
 to those who made it ? 
 
 y J. E. Worcester. 
 
29 
 
 APPENDIX IIL 
 
 If the reader has perused the preceding pages, he has seen that it 
 was made necessary for me to expose a gross literary fraud perpe- 
 trated by the publisher of my Dictionary in London ; and that, in 
 making this exposure, I took occasion to notice some misrepresenta- 
 tions and falsehoods relating to myself, which had been widely cir- 
 culated in this country by the Messrs. G. & C. Merriam, the publish- 
 ers of Dr. Webster's Dictionary, particularly in their Advertising 
 Pamphlet, published in May, 1853. 
 
 As an attempt had been made to do me injury in relation to the 
 fact of my having made, twenty-five years since, the Octavo Abridg- 
 ment of Dr. Webster's Dictionary, it became important for me to 
 obtain the testimony of Mr. Sherman Converse, the original pub- 
 lisher both of Dr. Webster's large Dictionary and of the Octavo 
 Abridgment, — he being the only person who knew all the facts in the 
 case. I had not seen Mr. Converse for a considerable number of 
 years ; when I leist heard from him, I was informed that he was a 
 " confirmed invalid " ; I did not know where he then resided, or, in- 
 deed, whether he was still living ; and I was for some time appre- 
 hensive that I should not be able to obtain any thing from him. But 
 I was at length so fortunate as to receive from him the letter which 
 is inserted in the preceding pages, beginning on the 11th page. 
 
 The first twenty-four pages of this Pamphlet were issued from the 
 press in October, 1853. Soon afterwards the Messrs. Merriam pub- 
 lished a second Pamphlet, containing an assertion relating to Mr. 
 Converse, which furnished a reason for my writing to him again. I 
 also had a Second Appendix of four additional pages printed in Jan- 
 uary, 1854, and in this Appendix Mr. Converse's second letter is to 
 be found, on the 27th page. I also took the liberty to insert an ex- 
 tract from a letter of Professor Goodrich to myself (dated Nov. 2d, 
 1853), together with my answer. After the Second Appendix was 
 issued, I sent a copy of it to Professor Goodrich, together with the 
 following letter : — 
 
30 
 
 Cambridge, Jan. 31, 1854. 
 Dear Sir : — 
 
 I now send you a copy of a second Appendix to the small Pamphlet which 
 you received some weeks since. I was sorry that I had occasion to prepare 
 the Pamphlet, and I am sorry, also, that I have had occasion to add this sec- 
 ond Appendix ; for I think I may truly say that I am a man of peace, and 
 not disposed to contend with or injure any one ; but I suppose it is right for 
 me to defend myself by stating the truth and exposing falsehood. 
 
 I have taken the liberty, as you will see, to insert extracts from letters 
 that have recently passed between us, — which I hope will not, under the 
 circumstances of the case, be thought an improper liberty. Whether you 
 had read all that the Messrs. Merriam had published relating to me, when 
 you wrote the letter dated Nov. 2d, I know not, and whether you will think 
 proper further to defend them, you will of course judge for yourself; but you 
 must allow me to believe that, were you in my position, you would think no 
 better of their conduct, nor bear it more patiently, than I do. 
 
 From information which I have recently received, I have learnt that the 
 injury which I have sustained by the misrepresentations and falsehoods in 
 relation to the use of Dr. Webster's Dictionary, which have been widely 
 circulated throughout the country, has been very great, — much greater than 
 I had heretofore been aware of. 
 
 It seems very unfortunate for me that I consented to perform the labor of 
 making an abridgment of Dr. Webster's Dictionary. I undertook the task, 
 as you are aware, with great reluctance ; yet there seems to have been no 
 complaint from any quarter, that the work was not done in a faithful and 
 satisfactory manner. The question relating to the use of Dr. Webster's Die* 
 tionary in preparing my Comprehensive Dictionary, was perhaps sufficiently 
 discussed in the correspondence between Dr. Webster and myself; the whole 
 of which you will probably not suppose that I should be unwilling, as it 
 respects myself, to have reproduced. With respect to the preparation of the 
 Universal Dictionary, I do not believe that you can find, in literary history, 
 a case of the kind, in which so scrupulous an abstinence from the use of the 
 materials of a previous work (affording so valuable materials for the prepa- 
 ration of a new one), was observed, as was observed by me in relation to Dr. 
 Webster's Dictionary. And I have the satisfaction to think that you, and 
 all others who know most of the facts in the case, believe that I am well 
 entitled to take the ground, and to have it conceded to me, of entire exemp- 
 tion from all blame^ from first to last, in relbtion to Dr. Webster'' s Dictionary; 
 that I have given no cause whatever for any complaint; and consequently, that 
 all the injury which I have sustained, or may hereafter sustain, in relation to 
 this matter, has been, and will be, caused by the circulation o/* misrepresenta- 
 tion AND FALSEHOOD. And is thc circulation of these misrepresentations and 
 falsehoods to be continued? With respect to the immorality of so doing, it 
 
SI 
 
 would seem that there can be but one opinion ; and it is equally obvious that 
 justice demands, not only a discontinuance of the circulation, but also a re- 
 traction to be made and as widely circulated as the misrepresentations and 
 falsehoods have been. And this, indeed, would give but a partial reparation 
 of the injury done. 
 
 I write to you on this subject as to one peculiarly connected with and 
 interested in Dr. Webster's Dictionary ; and I write, as you will perceive, 
 with the feelings of one who is conscious of having acted, in relation to that 
 work, with strict uprightness and fidelity, and who has been grossly injured 
 without having given any provocation. 
 
 Respectfully and faithfully yours, 
 
 J. E. Worcester. 
 Rev. Chauncey A. Goodrich, D. D. 
 
 Soon after the second Appendix was issued, the Messrs. Merriam 
 published a third Pamphlet, in which they inserted an extract from 
 the above-mentioned letter of Professor Goodrich to me (dated Nov. 
 2d), of which, as they state, " Professor Goodrich, at their request, 
 obliged them with a copy." In reference to this letter, and the U9e 
 made of it, I thought proper to write to Professor Goodrich, as fol- 
 lows : — 
 
 Cambridge, April 14, 1854. 
 Dear Sir : — 
 
 I wrote a letter to you on the 31st of January, and sent with it a copy of 
 " Appendix II." ; which I suppose you have received. In that Appendix I 
 took the liberty to insert an extract from a letter which I received from you, 
 dated Nov. 2d, 1853. By a Pamphlet since published by the Messrs. G. & 
 C. Merriam, I perceive that you furnished them with a copy of this letter of 
 yours to me, and that they have inserted in their Pamphlet an extract * from 
 the letter in which you defend them from attributing to me a participation in 
 the " gross literary fraud " relating to the pubhcation of my Dictionary in 
 London. 
 
 * The following is the extract from Professor Goodrich's letter to me, which is published by 
 the Messrs Merriam on the 5th page of their third Pamphlet : — 
 
 " I saw him [Mr Charles Merriam] for a short time, early in August last, as I was passing 
 through Springfield, and he then spoke to me of the London Title-page and Preface, which had 
 been sent him by his brother, who is in Europe. He spoke of them in a way which showed that 
 he had not the least suspicion of your being concerned in that transaction. He alluded to the 
 discrepancy between your statement and the Title-page, only as showing the extent to wliich Mr. 
 Bohn had felt himself to be driven ; since he was compelled to alter the Title-page and suppress 
 your statement that you had made no use of Dr. Webster's labors. The whole tenor of his con- 
 versation showed me that he had no intention whatever to cast any personal reflections on you." 
 
32 
 
 The Messrs. Merriam say, in this Pamphlet (p. 6), "Mr. Worcester 
 should not have felt at liberty to charge us with attributing to him a partici- 
 pation in this gross literary fraud, when we had not so charged him." And 
 after quoting the extract from your letter, they say, " We now respectfully 
 ask Mr. Worcester, with these facts before him, whether it was just in him 
 to reaffirm his injurious statements on this point." In answer to this, I may 
 say that / never so charged them, or thought of doing so, nor did I " reaffirm " 
 any such thing ; and I was surprised at your undertaking to defend them 
 from a charge which I never made, and which I did not then know that any 
 person had understood me as having made. The supposition that I could 
 have taken any part in that '* literary fraud " seems too absurd to be believed 
 by any intelligent person ; and how you or any one should suppose that I 
 accused the Messrs. Merriam of charging it upon me, I know not. You will 
 find nothing to countenance it in any thing that I have written. I said 
 (pp. 9 and 10), *' The publishers of Webster's Dictionary seem to insinuate 
 very strongly, in the paragraphs which I have quoted (p. 5), as they have 
 done on other occasions, that the statement is not correct," — namely, the 
 statement, " that I am not aware of having taken a single word, or the 
 definition of a word, from Dr. Webster's Dictionary." This is what I said 
 in relation to this point, and what I understood, and what others have under- 
 stood, them to insinuate. But of this you took no notice. In my second 
 Appendix I say (p. 26), and I now repeat it, — " I think I may safely say 
 that they [the Messrs. Merriam] have not disproved, and that they cannot 
 disprove, a single statement that I have made." 
 
 I am conscious that it has been my purpose to state nothing that was not 
 strictly true, nor to use language harsher than necessary to " call things by 
 their right names." A simple statement of facts, as I believe, is all that I 
 need for a complete vindication of my course throughout, in relation to Dr. 
 Webster's Dictionary. It has been my purpose to do nothing in relation to 
 that work which should be ground of reasonable complaint. I have taken 
 no part in any controversy relating to it, nor have I ever written a line, nor, 
 so far as I know, induced any other person to write a line against it ; nor is 
 it my intention ever to do any thing of the kind. 
 
 The Messrs. Merriam say, in their third Pamphlet (p. 7), " We do not 
 doubt that Dr. Worcester, with great delicacy, and in a manner highly hon- 
 orable to himself, conscientiously abstained from the use of Dr. Webster's 
 work." This, it would seem, virtually acquits me from one of the principal 
 charges which have been very widely circulated to my injury ; and so far, 
 very well. But afterwards (pp. 9 and 10) they say, " We might suggest 
 that we take it a little unkindly, that, in quoting from a private conciliatory 
 letter of Professor Goodrich, his remark, ^ If they have erred, I am for my- 
 self satisfied they have done it through inadvertence, not by design,' — thus 
 in some sort assuming a concession that we had erred, — Mr. W. did not 
 
33 
 
 also give the extract we have quoted, or others Irom the same letter, stating 
 facts which, in Professor Goodrich's opinion, exonerated us, chiefly or wholly, 
 from the imputation of having ' erred.' " This relates to the " extract " * 
 above referred to as inserted in their last Pamphlet ; but neither in that nor 
 in any part of your letter did you distinctly allude to any charge which 1 
 had actually made. 
 
 They say in reference to me (p. 12), " Should our explanations be satis- 
 factory to him, we shall be rejoiced." I would not wish to be thought too 
 difficult or unreasonable in such a case ; and I doubt not that I am as well 
 satisfied as you would be in having so injurious misrepresentations and 
 falsehoods widely circulated in relation to yourself, and not explicitly re- 
 tracted, when you were conscious of having given no provocation. 
 
 Respectfully yours, 
 
 J. E. Worcester. 
 Rev. Chauncey A. Goodrich, D. D. 
 
 In their third Pamphlet, the Messrs. Merriam (as the reader may see 
 in the accompanying "Answer" of Mr. Converse, p. 3), have pub- 
 lished a garbled form of Mr. Converse's second letter to me, with re- 
 marks upon him not of the most kindly character ; and tliey have 
 attempted to prove, and claim to have proved, some of his statements 
 to be false. Mr. Converse has felt himself so much injured, that he 
 has deemed it necessary, in order to vindicate the truth of his state- 
 ments, to be at the expense of publishing the following "Answer" 
 to the attack thus made upon him ; and he has sent his Answer to 
 me in manuscript, with a request that it may be " inserted in a third 
 Appendix to my Pamphlet, or printed in a proper manner to be 
 circulated separately." I am sorry to be under the necessity of 
 pursuing this matter further ; but it seems reasonable that Mr. Con- 
 verse should have an opportunity to defend himself from the asper- 
 sions cast upon him. When I wrote to him, I had no expectation 
 that he would be injured in this manner. That a gentleman — so 
 prostrated, as he is, by misfortune and long-continued chronic illness, 
 yet compelled, by painful efforts, to obtain his daily bread — should 
 be subjected to such vexation and expense for doing what he did (to 
 use his own words) " simply from a sense of duty," is to me a mat- 
 ter of much regret ; and one would think it would cause " compunc- 
 tious visitings " in other persons concerned. 
 
 * This "extract " is inserted at the bottom of the Slst page ; and it may be seen, with the 
 remarks of the Messrs. Merriam upon it, on the 5th page of their Pamphlet ; and in their re- 
 marks, they do not distinctly allude to any charge which I had actually made. 
 5 
 
34 
 
 The reader will see how fully Mr. Converse establishes the truth 
 of what he had previously stated ; and that he has shown, in relation 
 to the statement so often made by the Messrs. Merriam, that I " was 
 employed by Dr. Webster or his family to abridge the American 
 Dictionary," that it is void of truth. This statement in itself would 
 be of little importance, except for the hostile use that has been often 
 made of it. 
 
 As representations, falsely charging me with gross plagiarisms on 
 Dr. Webster's Dictionary, have been widely circulated throughout 
 the country, and many persons, as I have been informed, have been 
 made to believe these false charges, very much to my injury, it is 
 high time that the public should have correct information on the 
 subject. 
 
 I again drop this controversy for the present, — I hope for ever. 
 I have kept back matters which, perhaps, I may have occasion here- 
 after to bring forward ; but I hope it will not be necessary. As the 
 case now stands, I am bold to ask the impartial reader, What offence 
 on my part has been proved, and what statement that I have made 
 has been disproved ? 
 
 J. E. WORCESTER. 
 
 May, 1854. 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 Since the preceding pages were issued, the Messrs. Merriam have published 
 another Pamphlet^ which Mr. Converse has seen fit to notice. — See page II of his 
 " Answer." 
 
 That a gentleman of Mr. Converse's character and circumstances — a witness 
 wholly uninterested, and the only individual who has a personal knowledge of all 
 the facts to which he testifies — should receive such treatment, may "astonish" 
 others, one would think, as well as himself. 
 
 I will not venture to characterize this new Pamphlet ; nor can I undertake to re- 
 mark upon all the matters that are remarkable in it. But I will, at present, merely 
 request every person who may take an interest in this controversy, to read all that 
 has been published on both sides, and ask himself, what offence, on my part, has 
 been proved ; — or what statement that I have naade has been disproved ; — how 
 I could have pursued my literary labors in a more inoffensive manner than I have 
 done ; — and whether, in what I have written on this disagreeable affair, (for a per- 
 sonal controversy is to me exceedingly disagreeable,) my object has not been, not 
 to injure others, but merely to defend myself from misrepresentation and falsehood. 
 
 J. E. WORCESTER. 
 September, 1854. 
 
MR CONVERSE'S ANSWER 
 
 TO 
 
 AN ATTACK ON HIM BY MESSRS. C. & G. MERRIAM. 
 
 Camden, N. J., April, 1854. 
 Mr. Worcester : — 
 
 I herewith send you an Answer to the attack on me by the Messrs. Mer- 
 riam, in manuscript, longer than I could wish, and perhaps longer than you 
 may think necessary, I wish to have it published at my own expense, and, 
 if you are willing, in a third Appendix to your pamphlet, that it may be read 
 in connection with what I have before written. It is my wish to have it 
 printed as it is, notwithstanding it contains a letter from yourself to me and 
 my answer, which have already appeared. The words which are under- 
 scored I wish to be italicized. If you do not see fit to have it inserted in a 
 third Appendix, I wish to have it printed in a proper manner to be circulated 
 separately. I fear its length may deter you from allowing it to appear in 
 the connection desired, but I have felt it necessary to give, somewhat in de- 
 tail, circumstances connected with the relations I sustained to Dr. Webster 
 and his Dictionaries, that others may see why he should naturally have felt 
 desirous of yielding, in some degree, to my views and wishes in regard to 
 the Abridgment, although so directly in conflict with his own. But for 
 greatly impaired health, and the necessity of almost constantly travelling 
 from place to place, I should have sent you my reply at an earlier day. 
 
 Very faithfully yours, 
 
 S. Converse. 
 
2 
 
 MR. CONVERSE'S ANSWER, 
 
 April, 1854. 
 Mb. "Worcester : — 
 
 On the 12th of August last, you addressed me a letter requesting me to say 
 whether I knew " of any thing ivrong or dishonorable on your part," in relation to 
 the agency you had in making the Abridgment of Webster's Octavo Dictionary. 
 I replied, ^'Nothing ichatever"; and gave a short statement of facts in relation to 
 that work. On the 13th of December following, you addressed me another letter, 
 a copy of which, together with a copy of my answer, I here insert. 
 
 THE LETTERS. 
 
 " December 13, 1853. To Mr. S. Converse : — Dear Sir, I say in my pam- 
 phlet, ' The statement that I was employed by Dr. Webster or his family to 
 abridge the American Dictionary is void of truth/ This I supposed, and still sup- 
 pose, to be strictly true. Is it, or is it not so ? You were the only person that I 
 had any thing to do with in undertaking to perform that labor, and I supposed 
 you acted on your own responsibility, as in an affair of your own. The Messrs. 
 Merriam, in their recent pamphlet, say, ' Our statement, we submit to you and 
 the public, in its fair intent and spirit, is not void of truth, and you were employed 
 by Dr. Webster or his family, through Mr. C, as their agent, to abridge his Dic- 
 tionary!' 
 
 "Please to inform me, from your own knowledge of the facts, whether my state- 
 ment is strictly true or not. Yours, &c., J. E. Worcester." 
 Mr. Converse^s Answer, dated December 19, 1853. 
 
 " To Mr. Worcester : — Dear Sir, You request me to say whether, in nego- 
 tiating with you to abridge Mr. Webster's Quarto Dictionary, I acted as agent 
 either of Dr. Webster or his family. My answer is, that I acted as agent of no 
 man. My arrangement with Mr. Webster and his family, was for permission to 
 make and publish an octavo abridgment of the large work, with liberty to in- 
 clude some slight alterations from the original. The alterations were left to the 
 mutual discretion of Professor Goodrich and myself, carefully restricted within a 
 limit dictated by Mr. Webster. This point settled, I determined to stereotype 
 the work ; and as the whole responsibility of the undertaking rested on me alone, 
 I could think of but one man to whom I felt willing to confide the important trust 
 of making an abridgment which involved a risk so great. Your attainments and 
 pursuits had eminently qualified you for the task, and I decided at once to engage 
 your services if possible. Either before or directly after my correspondence with 
 you upon the subject, I intimated my preference and purpose to Professor Good- 
 rich, and received his cordial approval. The risk and expense both of abridging 
 and stereotyping the Octavo Dictionary were exclusively my own. The family 
 of Mr. Webster had no share in either, and I (Jo not know that I ever disclosed to 
 any member of it the terms of my contract, either with yourself or the type- 
 founders. Yours, &c., S. Converse." 
 
 When replying to your letters, I was not aware that testifying to your integ- 
 rity in matters of mutual concern, twenty-five years ago, could give offence to liv- 
 ing man. Up to that time, I had been ignorant of the misunderstanding between 
 
3 
 
 yourself and the Messrs. Merriam ; I had seen none of the various publications in 
 the controversy ; had no concern with its merits ; cherished no unkind feelings 
 toward those gentlemen ; and replied to your letters simply from a sense of duty 
 to one whose high standing and honorable intercourse had challenged my respect 
 from our earliest acquaintance. It seems, however, from your letter above quoted, 
 that one part of the controversy had been narrowed down to the truth or false- 
 hood of the Messrs. Merriam's assertion, that " you were employed by Dr. "Web- 
 ster or his family, through me, as their agent, to abridge his Dictionary." 
 
 My answer declared that '•''I acted as the agent of no manP At this the Messrs. 
 Merriam have taken umbrage, and made on me &rude and unprovoked attack ; a 
 copy of which I here insert, that they may have the full benefit of it, in connec- 
 tion with what I am about to say. 
 
 THE ATTACK. 
 
 " Now, in the first place, it is preposterous to suppose Dr. "Webster ever save 
 such an unqualified license to any person to go forward and make and publish an 
 abridgment of this work, the labor of his life, independently of his own control, 
 as Mr. Converse's letter implies. Every circumstance in the case disproves such 
 a position. The extract published by Dr. Worcester himself of a letter to him 
 from Dr. "Webster, of July 27, 1828, in which he says, ' Under the circumstances 
 I have consented to it [Dr. Worcester's abridging the work], and shall send the 
 copy,' shows that his assent was necessary. Dr. Worcester, likewise, himself ex- 
 pressly disavows having had any control over the orthography, &c., which he says 
 *were decided upon by his [Dr. Webster's] representative fviz. one of his 'fam- 
 ily,' Professor Goodrich], and over which I had no control.' Nor had Mr. Con- 
 verse the slightest. Dr. Goodrich, in his Preface to the Revised Edition of Web- 
 ster's 8vo., published in 1847, speaks of the original Abridgment as ' made under 
 the author's direction ' by Dr. Worcester. 
 
 " Now hear Mr. Sherman Converse, in his suflSciently egotistical letter : — 
 
 "'/ acted as agent for no man /determined to stereotype the work. 
 
 /could think of but one man to whom / felt willing to confide the impor- 
 tant trust ; / decided at once to engage your services /intimated my pref- 
 erence and purpose to Professor Goodrich The risk and expense both of abridg- 
 ing and stereotyping the Octavo Dictionary were exclusivelu my own The family 
 
 of Mr. Webster had no share in either, and / do not know that / ever disclosed,' 
 &c. 
 
 " We have obtained from the Executors of Dr. Webster's Estate, a copy of the 
 Contract made by Dr. W. with Mr. Converse, from which the following are ex- 
 tracts : — ' The said Webster, on his part, having the fullest confidence in the 
 ability and judgment of Joseph E. Worcester, Esq., of Cambridge, Massa- 
 chusetts, he doth authorize the said Converse to commit to said Worcester the 
 work of abridging said Dictionary into an octavo volume as aforesaid, on the fol- 
 lowing principles.' * The pronunciation, as marked and indicated by characters 
 in said Dictionary, shall be retained, and such other words ..... shall have their 
 
 pronunciation indicated by the use of the above-mentioned characters, and 
 
 such additional ones as said Webster shall furnish and point out.'' ' Should said 
 Worcester doubt at any time as to the pronunciation intended by said Webster, 
 the words in question shall be referred to said Webster for his decision.' ' Any 
 suggestions made by said Webster, as to alterations and improvements, shall be 
 attended to.' ' And the said Webster doth hereby agree that the said Converse 
 may retain Jive hundred dollars, from the first payments due said Webster on the 
 proceeds of the said octavo edition, as his the said Webster's share of a recompense 
 to said Worcester for his services in abridging the Dictionary aforesaid.^ 
 
 " Thus much for Mr. Sherman Converse. It will be seen that the statement in 
 his letter is in direct conflict with the express language of the contract ; while the 
 whole spirit of his statement is not less positively contravened by the spirit and 
 tenor of this precise legal instrument. We do not think we need waste time in 
 
comment. If Mr. 'Worcester thinks it a state of facts on which to raise a question 
 of personal veracity, we are willing to submit the case without argument to the 
 verdict of the public. If the case wei-e his own, we think we could quote a pas- 
 sage from Matthew which he might properly commend to the other party, 'for 
 their consideration and- benefit,' which should lead them to be more charitable. 
 Yet we presume Dr. Worcester never saw this Converse contract, — his direct 
 negotiations being made with Mr. C. We bring no charge of want of veracity in 
 this matter against him. Must he not concede he has been hasty in advancing 
 such a charge against others ? " 
 
 Fortunate, indeed, that, unlike the phenomena in nature, the Merriam thunder 
 is without lightning, and " I still live." 
 
 A waggish fellow-student of mine, in college, assured his professor that he 
 could give Scripture authority for the crime of suicide. " Judas went and hanged 
 himself " ; '• go thou and do likewise." 
 
 If, by adopting the same rule of quotation, the gentlemen think they have 
 gained a victory over me, let them look to their laurels ; they will find them no 
 Evergreens. 
 
 To a clear understanding of what I had said, strict justice required the publi- 
 cation of both my letters in full, in connection with their attack. But they have 
 preferred to invest the subject with darkness, rather than light. 
 
 My first letter they have omitted entirely, and suppressed what was essential in 
 the second. Their quotations from the contract may have been made by the 
 same rule. I have not seen that instrument for more than twenty years, but am 
 content to take the extracts as they have given them. 
 
 Would my limits permit, it would afibrd some satisfaction to give you, in this 
 place, a history of the origin and progress of my connection with Dr. "Webster 
 and his Dictionaries ; and to show you why he had failed to procure the publica- 
 tion of the original work, either in this country, England, or France, previous to 
 the application made to myself. 
 
 Dr. "Webster returned from Europe, with his Manuscripts, greatly disheartened, 
 if not in despair of their publication. In process of time. Professor Goodrich 
 asked me if I would publish the Dictionary. My answer was. Yes, on certain 
 conditions ; one of which was that I should have the right, on fair terms, to an 
 octavo abridgment. My conditions were accepted by Dr. Webster ; a contract 
 was executed, and as early as possible the work was put to press. 
 
 But owing to a movement by Dr. Webster in early life, having for its object, as 
 has been said, to correct the anomalous character of English orthography, by 
 spelling each word as pronounced,* such was the prejudice in the community 
 against him, as a Lexicographer, and such the misapprehension concerning the 
 
 * Whether Dr. "Webster ever actually made such a moTement, with such design, I have no 
 personal knowledge j but in laboring to secure favor for the large Dictionary, I found that the 
 charge and belief that he had done so had become almost universal, and to that fact alone I could 
 attribute the deep-rooted prejudice and utter misapprehension throughout the country, in 
 regard to the real character of his great work. He was said to have published a small volume, 
 which I have never seen, in which he gave examples of the changes proposed. The late Professor 
 Kingsley, of Yale College, I am quite sure, told me that he had seen a copy, and quoted some of 
 the examples, one of which was noshun, for notion. To the belie/of this statement, whether true 
 or not, I doubt not the prejudice and misapprehension were justly attributable. 
 
real character of his work, that, before my agents could succeed at all in obtain- 
 ing subscribers, it became necessary for me to confer personally with a great num- 
 ber of the principal literary and influential men throughout the Union ; and by 
 means of extracts from the manuscripts, and verbal explanations, to disabuse their 
 minds. My efforts were so successful, that by the countenance and patronage of 
 most of the distinguished gentlemen whom I met, and by means of written recom- 
 mendations of the Dictionary from several of them, I was enabled to secure suf- 
 ficient patronage to defray the actual expenses of publication, but by no means to 
 remunerate for time and labor. 
 
 Among the great number of gentlemen whom I met for the purpose, were Mr. 
 Pickering, Judge Story, William Sullivan, and Mr. Everett, of Boston ; Chancel- 
 lor Kent, Dr. Francis, Professor Eenwick, and David B. Ogden, of New York ; 
 Matthew Gary, Judge Hopkinson, Mr. Duponceau, Dr. Rush, and members gen- 
 erally of the celebrated Wistar Club, of Philadelphia ; John Quincy Adams, Mr. 
 Calhoun, Mr. Clay, Daniel Webster, Mr. Wirt, and members of Congress from 
 all parts of the United States, at Washington. By the time, therefore, that the 
 first volume was out of press, my intercourse with the influential part of the com- 
 munity at large had become so extensive as to enable me to form a tolerably cor- 
 rect estimate of what would be popular or unpopular in a new dictionary ; and led 
 me to a decision to put the Octavo Abridgment in progress at once, if Dr. Web- 
 ster would consent to sundry alterations and variations from the original. He had 
 agreed to give me the right of an Octavo Abridgment ; but then, he was ex- 
 pected to make it himself, or procure it to be made at his own expense, and only 
 in reasonable time, after the publication of the original work entire. This brings 
 me to a passage in my intercourse with Dr. Webster, from the history of which I 
 shall not lift the veil. He has gone to his rest, and no man was witness to our 
 interviews. Were he here, he would answer for himself, and would confirm my 
 statements. 
 
 Dr. Webster was a man of peculiar temperament ; his general health had be- 
 come greatly impaired j his physical powers were lamentably prostrated ; and his 
 nervous system had reached a degree of excitability exceedingly painful to him- 
 self. In addition to all this, he was keenly alive to whatever might compromit 
 his integrity and character as an author. Many months must elapse before the 
 printing of the second volume of the original could be completed ; and all the 
 proof-sheets must be revised and corrected by himself. He, therefore, justly said 
 that he could sustain no additional labor, and that I had no claim on him, then, 
 either to abridge the work himself or to employ another. 
 
 Under all these circumstances, I had come to him with a proposal, not only to 
 assume new burthens, but to make an abridgment, with alterations and variations 
 from the original, to which he said he could not submit. Dr. Webster did not mean 
 to treat me unkindly or unjustly, but I had placed him in a painful dilemma, and I 
 do not believe he would ever have made the concessions he did but for a desire to 
 do me a favor, superadded to the kind offices of Professor Goodrich exerted in my 
 behalf. 
 
 The result of the whole matter was, that he gave me permission to employ a 
 suitable person, if I could find one, to make the abridgment. He also gave me 
 
6 
 
 permission to introduce such modifications from the original as he had consented 
 to in conversation, and within such limits as lie should prescribe ; and, in conclu- 
 sion, he added with emphatic feeling ^ "I shall submit the modifications to the dis- 
 cretion of Professor Goodrich and yourself, and that I may not be responsible for 
 them as author^ I shall give the copyright to another" naming the person. This 
 same feeling, in regard to the integrity of his authorship, he afterwards manifested 
 in his Preface to the Octavo Abridgment, as follows : — 
 
 EXTBACT FBOM THB PKEFACE. 
 
 " As the author of the original work has intrusted the superintendence of the 
 abridgment to another person, he is not to be considered as responsible for any 
 of the modifications already alluded to." 
 
 Dr. Webster's permission made me free to act, but before I proceed further let 
 me here join issue with the Messrs. Merriam. 
 
 They say, — " You were employed by Dr. Webster or his family, through Mr. 
 Converse, as their agent, to abridge his Dictionary." 
 
 / say, — that ^^ I acted as the agent of no man."" 
 
 We shall now see which assertion will stand, and whether the other statements 
 in my letters were true. 
 
 Dr. Webster left me to myself; his permission was to employ a suitable per- 
 son, but he suggested no name. My first application was to you. After writing 
 twice to you on the subject, and receiving a negative answer to both applications, 
 I visited you at your residence in Cambridge. You were prevailed on to under- 
 take the labor ; and for the first time apprised me of the existence of your Synop- 
 sis of Words differently pronounced by diflferent Lexicographers ; and of the fact 
 that Todd's Walker's Johnson contained a great number of words which were not 
 comprised in the large Dictionary which you had consented to abridge. The use 
 of your Synopsis I eagerly secured, as the best available substitute for what had 
 been denied me by Dr. Webster, namely, the insertion of Walker's pronunciation 
 in the text. Our contract was accordingly made to include both the use of your 
 Synopsis and the insertion of the extra words from Todd's Johnson, which, if I 
 correctly remember, were found to exceed three thousand. Our contract bears 
 date July 11, 1828. 
 
 Having returned to New Haven, I called on Dr. Webster ; informed him that 
 I had made a contract with you to abridge the Dictionary, and requested him to 
 execute a written agreement, confirming what I had done, agreeable to his verbal 
 permission, and securing to me both the right to abridge and publish. Accord- 
 ingly, his Conti'act with me was duly executed, and bears date July 26, 1828; 
 fijleen days after my contract with you had been executed in Cambridge ! Great 
 candor, certainly, in the Messrs. Merriam, to ^^ presume that Dr. Worcester never 
 saw this Converse Contract." * 
 
 At the date of yours it would have been difficult to see that which had no exist- 
 ence. But why did you never see or hear of it afterwards 1 For the good reason 
 that you had no concern with it. The subject-matter of the contract concerned 
 only Dr. Webster and myself. My having employed you to abridge, and his hav- 
 ing consented to the introduction of various modifications from the original at my 
 
discretion, made it necessary for Dr. Webster to prescribe to me the limits beyond 
 which I should have no right to introduce a variation ; that, if I should claim any 
 thing beyond those limits, I might be confronted with the Contract. But for this 
 necessity, the Contract would have contained a simple agreement to print and 
 publish. This very feature in it shows conclusively that you had been employed 
 by me, and not by Dr. Webster; and that I was to share with Professor Goodrich 
 the discretionary power over the modifications within the limits prescribed. 
 
 Within, we had discretion ; beyond, not a particle. Dr. Webster's authority 
 was, there, supreme ; and had the work which I had employed you to do been 
 simply to make an abridgment of the large Dictionary, nothing would have been 
 necessary on the part of Dr. Webster but to put the copy into your hands and tell 
 you to preserve the integrity of the original. 
 
 It was the permission given for discretionary modifications by a third indepen- 
 dent party that rendered limitation necessary, and the delegation of Professor 
 Goodrich, as Dr. Webster's representative, to see that there should be no trans- 
 gression. It should be borne in mind that the modifications were not of Dr. Web- 
 ster's seeking; that no man suggested, or, so far as I know, desired, their intro- 
 duction, but myself; and that he only granted with painful reluctance what he 
 would have been better pleased to withhold. 
 
 My discretion, touching the variations, was that of a business man. I wished 
 for such changes as, in my judgment, would either increase the popularity of the 
 work or protect it against injurious criticism. Professor Goodrich denied me 
 nothing I claimed within the discretion allowed ; but so careful was he not to 
 transgress, that you will remember, while we were at your house settling instruc- 
 tions for your guide, he denied me a certain modification, till he had made a spe- 
 cial journey to New Haven to consult Dr. Webster. 
 
 But if Dr. Webster had made the abridgment himself, he would have made it 
 for me, and not for another. When, therefore, he gave me permission to employ 
 you, he only authorized me to do for myself what, from pressure of circumstances, 
 he could not do for me. Hear him in his own letter to you the day after his Con- 
 tract with me had been executed : — 
 
 "New Haven, July 27th, 1828. 
 
 " Sir, — Mr. Converse has engaged you to abridge my Dictionary, and has re- 
 quested me to forward you the copy of the first volume. This was unexpected to 
 me, but under the circumstances I have consented to it, and shall send the copy.** 
 
 Strange language this, if he had employed you himself to abridge his Diction- 
 ary, through me as his agent. The Messrs. Merriam quoted part of this letter ; the 
 whole would have defeated their purpose. Dr. Webster has expressed in it his 
 own views of what he had done in his Contract the day before, namely, consented to 
 my having engaged you to abridge his Dictionary. My request that he would 
 forward you the copy, and his promise to comply, shows the engagement with 
 you to abridge to have been mine, and not his. The absurd supposition that, being 
 the agent of Dr. Webster, I could have employed you on my own account without 
 disclosing my agency, I pass by ; and yet, had such been the fact, yon would have 
 been quite sure to hear from him on the subject in due time. 
 6 
 
8 
 
 But let me put myself in immediate contrast with the Messrs. Merriam on a 
 single point. 
 
 They say, — " It is preposterous to suppose Dr. Webster ever gave such unqual- 
 ified license to any person to go forsvard and make and publish an abridgment of 
 this work, the labor of his life, independently of his own control^ as Mr. Converse's 
 letter implies." 
 
 In the same letter to which they refer, I say, — " My arrangement with Mr. 
 Webster and his family was for permission to make and publish an octavo abridg- 
 ment of the large work, with liberty to include some slight alterations from the 
 original. The alterations were left to the mutual discretion of Professor Good- 
 rich and myself, carefully restricted within a limit dictated by Mr. Webster." 
 
 The Messrs. Merriam have suppressed this whole passage in making their ex- 
 tracts from my letter, and then have the face to assert that it implies exactly the 
 contrary of what it declares ! The mere school-boy understands plain English 
 better than to say that my letter implies no control over the abridgment on the part 
 of Dr. Webster. Nor could the thick skull of a Hottentot so obscure the percep- 
 tion as not to comprehend the necessity of an author's consent and authority either 
 to abridge or publish his work. 
 
 But the gentlemen rely on the Contract to prove me to have been the agent of 
 Dr. Webster. 
 
 What says that Instrument ? 
 
 " He (the said Webster) doth authorize the said Converse to commit to said Wor- 
 cester the work of abridging said Dictionary into an octavo volume." 
 
 And is this, language which such a man as Dr. Webster would have used, had 
 it been his purpose to constitute and appoint me his true and lawful agent and at- 
 torney, to employ you to abridge his Dictionary 1 I had already employed you 
 fifteen days before, and that without his knowledge, and he now simply gives me 
 authority to carry out what I had undertaken. To authorize, simply gives a right 
 to act, but makes no appointment and constitutes no agency. To commit, is simply 
 to put into the hands or power of another, or to intrust. As the Contract was a 
 legal Instrument, Dr. Webster then gave me legal right, power, or authority, 
 whichever you choose, to put into your hands or power, or to intrust to you, the 
 iDcrk of making the abridgment. In other and simple language, he gave me per- 
 mission, under the sanction of a sealed Instrument, to employ you to abridge his 
 Dictionary. And this I had already done, on my ©wn responsibility and at my 
 own risk and expense. But the performance of this work or labor of making the 
 abridgment on your part, had no connection with Dr. Webster's authority or con- 
 trol over the matter of the Dictionary as author. Nor could it impart to the abridg- 
 ment the least authority of your own. 
 
 The Messrs. Merriam have assumed false premises, and been led to assert, and 
 pertinaciously maintain, what is, per se, afalseJiood, for want of .clear perception of 
 what constitutes an abridgment. Far be it from me to believe the gentlemen 
 would wilfully or knowingly utter a falsehood ; though I could wish that, in their 
 extracts from my letter, they had been less careful to suppress the truth. 
 
 To say that the abridgment was made under Dr. Webster's authority, control, 
 or direction, as author^ is simply to assert a truism in relation to what is inseparable 
 
from the very idea and character of an abridgment. Dr. Webster was author of the 
 large Dictionary. That work, therefore, embodied his authority as a Lexicog- 
 rapher. As an English Lexicon, it represe^ed his authority ; but such authority 
 was based solely on his authorship. 
 
 And what is an abridgment ? A mere epitome or compend of an original or more 
 extended work, and carries with it, from the original, the full character and 
 authority of authorship ; and that whether made by the author himself or by another 
 hand. Disconnected from such authority, it is no longer an abridgment. To 
 have cut into the large Dictionary right and left, and altered, garbled, suppressed, 
 added, and omitted ad libitum, would not have been to abridge the work, but to 
 make a new Dictionary out of materials more or less filched from Dr. Webster, 
 but in no sense representing him or possessing his authority. Purely to abridge 
 the large Dictionary would have been to make a simple epitome of it, changing in 
 no respect whatever the character or features of the original. That man, there- 
 fore, who does not perceive that an abridgment, preserving the integrity of the 
 original, is in its own nature inseparable from the authority of the author, must 
 have the osfrontis of an animal of stolid celebrity. Dr. Webster, therefore, could 
 incur no risk in allowing me to employ whom I pleased, if competent, to abridge 
 his Dictionary, and this he very well knew. The only trouble in the case, as it 
 existed, resulted from the discretion given to a third party to dictate modijications 
 from the original to a certain extent. Such modifications could not carry with 
 them the authority of Dr. Webster ; bulr the Abridgment at large was intended 
 to do so, and hence Dr. W. was elaborate in his precautions to guard the original 
 against modifications he had not conceded, and was careful to disclaim those 
 which he had. Singular man Dr. Webster, to have employed me as his agent to 
 do, or, which would have been the same thing, to have done himself, that of which 
 he declared beforehand he would not take the responsibility ; and on which, when 
 done, he cnstamped the seal of repudiation. Perhaps the Messrs. Merriam will 
 explain how this could happen. They are astute in argument. 
 
 But the Messrs. MeiTiam have published the Dictionary for years, and ought 
 to have learned by this time that to authorize a party to do an act is one thing, and 
 to employ a party as agent to do the same act is quite another. They are author- 
 ized to publish the large work, but do they publish it as the agents of Dr. Web- 
 ster's heirs 1 If so, they were constituted agents by terms very different from 
 authorize. 
 
 They ought also to have learned that an agency binds the principal for all ex- 
 penses incurred, or agreed to be incurred, and frees the agent from all liability to 
 the party with whom he contracts, and also to the principal, if he adheres to in- 
 structions. 
 
 I commend the gentlemen to the study of the Dictionary, and beg to introduce 
 to their acquaintance the words Courtesy and Candor. 
 
 Dr. Webster did ttot make me his agent to employ you to do the work of abridg- 
 ing his Dictionary, or for any other purpose, but took special care that I should 
 not be so in fact, or be held to be so in law. He did not mean to assume the risk, 
 responsibility, or expense of making the abridgment. He knew very well the 
 precise meaning of terms, and he purposely made use of such as would preclude 
 
10 
 
 all idea of my having acted as his agent, and therefore protect him against any 
 liability which might be incurred by my acts under such pretence. He did, it seems 
 provide in the Contract for indemnity to me to the amount of five hundred dollars, 
 should so much ever be derived as copyright from the success of the publication. 
 But that subjected him to no risk, responsibility, or expense in the outset ; and 
 even this provision, in the lapse of twenty-five years, had escaped my memory; 
 and the Messrs. Merriam are welcome to any relief this semblance of discrepancy 
 may afford them. 
 
 As to their tart allusion to my egotism, it is painful to be made sensible of hav- 
 ing offended true modesty ; yet even in this case, it would not be difiBcult to polish 
 and return a shaft, with an aim and an arm, that might make it felt. 
 
 They have raked from the dust and repose of bygone years, a private contract 
 with which they had no concern ; have violated the confidence of its seal, for which 
 they can offer no justification ; and, by misconstruction of its simple language, 
 have assayed to sustain a bad cause by a worse argument. 
 
 They have invaded the sanctuary of private feeling, and dragged forth confi- 
 dential transactions and personal misfortunes,* having no relevancy whatever to 
 the matter in debate, and committed them to the wings of the wind in pamphlets 
 and newspapers. And wherefore? Simply because I had testified to your integ- 
 rity and honor in matters between us, in 1828, and stated that, in employing you 
 to abridge his Dictionary, I did not act as the agent of Dr. Webster ! 
 
 Time has been when an attack so wanton, affording provocation so just, would 
 have drawn from my pen a rebuke more scathing than they could have desired 
 me to administer. 
 
 But if such testimony, and such a statement on my part, could awaken feelings 
 in their breasts which could only be appeased by a sacrificial offering so unholy, I 
 forgive them. I do more. 
 
 Such an enemy in one's own bosom must be like the Arch Fiend in Paradise, 
 administering sweets to the taste to create bitterness in the soul. 
 
 To the injury so wantonly inflicted, I am by no means insensible. Yet I am 
 happy here to say, in all sincerity, that the man does not live tov/ard whom I 
 cherish an unkind feeling ; and at the same time to assure the Messrs. Merriam 
 that they have my best wishes that misfortunes may never overtake them. It has 
 always given me sincere gratification to hear of their success. I hope it may con- 
 tinue, and give them the means of extensive usefulness. Yet no man's mountain 
 stands so firmly that it may not be shaken ; nor is it crowned with fruits and 
 verdure so rich and beautiful that it may not be made desolate. 
 
 They are in possession of wealth which, but for misfortune, would have been 
 mine. And rather than misrepresent and abuse me, it would better become them 
 to send me a copy of the J)ictionary, handsomely bound, accompanied by a check 
 for a liberal amount on their bankers, with a kind note requesting my acceptance 
 
 * The paragraph in the attack to which allusion is here made I omitted to copy, as having 
 nothing to do with the question pending ; and I think the Messrs. Merriam themselves, in cooler 
 moments, and under the influence of better feelings, will regret its insertion in their pam- 
 phlet. 
 
11 
 
 i 
 
 of both, in acknowledgment of riches derived from the large Dictionary, for which, 
 primarily^ they have been so greatly indebted to my efforts and misfortunes. They 
 can well afford to be kind; I ask them only to be just ; and now, either to frankly 
 confess, through their pamphlets and newspapers, that they have misapprehended 
 and done me wrong, or publish and circulate this, my third letter to you, as widely 
 as they have circulated their unjustifiable attack on me. The public will then be 
 in a position to render an intelligent verdict between us. 
 
 Respectfully yours, 
 
 S. CONVERSE. 
 
 Mr. Converse^s Notice of what is said by Messrs. G. Sf C. Merriam^ in Relation 
 to the preceding ^^ Answer.** 
 
 Schroon Lake, N. Y., August 30, 1854. 
 Mb. Wobcesteh: — 
 
 Since the publication of my answer to the attack made on me by Messrs. G. & 
 C. Merriam, my attention has been called to a new pamphlet of theirs. Whether 
 you will think proper to notice it, I cannot say. If you should, I will thank you 
 to insert this letter. 
 
 The Messrs. Merriam, I am told, arc professors of the Christian Faith. When, 
 therefore, they had read my answer to their attack, and seen that I had given them 
 the full benefit of their attack in connection with my answer, I had a right to ex- 
 pect from them a frank acknowledgment, that they had misapprehended, and 
 done me wrong, or a prompt publication and circulation of my answer in full, 
 coijxtensively with the circulation of their own pamphlets. But surprised as I 
 was at the garbling and misrepresentation contained in their attack, I confess my- 
 self now more than astonished. In looking at the portion of theu* pamphlet pro- 
 fcssedly devoted to me, the question was irresistibly forced upon me, " Can these 
 gentlemen be really of sane mind ? " 
 
 As Christian professors, it is just to presume that they each have a Closet^ which 
 they do not neglect. In the secret communion of that secret and sacred retreat, 
 let me request them in all kindness, to make up an answer for themselves to the 
 following questions : — 
 
 First. — Was it consistent with truth, justice, or honor, or with the precept in 
 the Golden Rule, to represent me in their pamphlet as having made an attack on 
 Dr. Webster, his Dictionaries, or his Publishers ? I have made no attack on 
 either, and have only been compelled to defend myself against their own rude and 
 unprovoked attack on me, at an expense I am poorly able to bear. 
 
 Secondly. — Was it consistent with truth, justice, or honor, to represent me as 
 having thrown out " dark insinuations about Dr. Webster, which I hope not to be 
 constrained to divulge" ? I have made no insinuations " about Dr. Webster" or 
 any other man. I said in my answer to their attack, " This brings me to a pas- 
 sage in my intercourse with Dr. Webster, from the history of which I shall not 
 lift the veil. He has gone to his rest, and no man was witness to our interviews. 
 Were he here, he would answer for himself and would confirm my statements." 
 Also, that " Dr. Webster did not mean to treat me unkindly or unjustly," and 
 that " I did not believe he would have made the concessions he did but for a de- 
 
 *i 
 
 I/* 
 
12 
 
 sire to do me a favor,'" &c. And here the gentlemen say are "dark I'o^iinua' 
 tions," which I have expressed the hope, thaJ "I shall not be constraine(i4o<li*- 
 vnlgc " ! I only ask the gentlemen to fevicyr this extraordinary passage in their 
 pamphlet, in an honest hour, in that s'^ret place where the heart is naked to the 
 eye of Him who searcheth it. No misunderstanding or unkind feeling occurred 
 or existed at those interviews, but there are grave reasons, not personal to Dr. 
 Webster or myself, for not lifting the veil from their whole history. Were Dr. 
 Webster living, it would give him pleasure to confirm my statements and to tes- 
 tify to the world that I am quite as well acquainted with all transactions between 
 him and myself in 1828, as the Messrs. Merriam can pretend to be ; although, with 
 distinguished modesty, they have undertaken at this late day to instruct me and 
 the public in the matter. 
 
 Tliirdly. — Was it consistent with truth, justice, or honor, to wholly pervert what 
 I have said in my three letters addressed to you, by such garbling and comments 
 as to entirely misrepresent their plain intent and meaning 1 
 
 Fourthly. — Is it consistent with truth, justice, or honor, to send out their gar- 
 bled statements and misrepresentations, and refuse to circulate in connection there- 
 with my answer to their attack on me ? That answer contains all I wish to say, 
 in reply to anything they have said or can say, having the least relevancy to the 
 point in debate, which is therein clearly and fairly stated, although in their last 
 pamphlet they seem to have quite forgotten it. I will now test their willingness 
 to let the truth appear to their readers. I propose to supply them, free of expense 
 to themselves, with such number of copies of my answer to their attack on me, as 
 will enable them to send a copy to each individual to whom they have sent the 
 attack, and if they wish it, I will pay them a fair price for the trouble of doing 
 them up, and the postage on such as are sent by mail. Or if they will give me 
 a list of the names of those to whom they have sent their attack, I will save them 
 all further trouble in the i/atter. If they will assure me that they will so circulate 
 my answer, and will state the number of copies required, they shall be supplied. 
 
 Fifthly. — Was it consistent with justice or truth, to undertake to make me a 
 party to their controversy with you, when I had no connection with it, or interest ^ 
 in it, whatever 1 
 
 The gentlemen seem willing to give me a hundred dollars to confess myself in 
 error in this dispute. I doubt not they would give twice the amount, to feel an 
 honest conviction that they had done me no wrong, and were not wholly in the 
 wrong themselves. They have repeatedly complained of my having testified to 
 their injury ! Is it not marvellous, that testifying to your integrity and honor, in 
 matters between us in 1828, should work such terrible injury to the Messrs. Mer- 
 riam in 1 854 ! Were they as truly martyrs as their zeal to be thought so is ap- 
 parent, the history of John Rogers would be totally eclipsed by a simple narrative 
 of their sufferings. But enough. It is not my purpose to make a reply to their 
 very extraordinary misrepresentations in their late pamphlet, and my health is so 
 prostrated, that writing is a painful effort. I only wish the gentlemen to review 
 what they have said, and settle the questions I have proposed, in the manner sug- 
 gested, and to circulate my answer to their attack as requested. 
 
 Very faithfully yours, 
 
 S. CONVERSE. 
 
 ^ ^- ^ - c- 
 
 ci 
 
 "^ ^ 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 LmRARv Use 
 
 ' 
 
 OCT 1 1959 
 
 
 W^^DCD 
 
 
 OCT it> *B§9 
 
 
 FEB1119G9 03 
 
 
 RECEIVED 
 
 
 FEE20'6S-12AW 
 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 r.N.tA'o7.%i' "--HS-^-a 
 
LIBRARY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE BEFORE CLOSING TIME 
 ON LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW 
 
 LIBRARY USE 
 
 
 -^ 16 1966 
 
 
 EU't.e.^l«tQ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Tl 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 LD 62A-50m-2,'64 
 (E34948l0)9412A 
 
 General Library 
 
 University of California 
 
 Berkeley 
 
''t ^^ 
 
 
 ."^M