That the natural tendency of infusing such malignant filth in the mass of blood is to corrupt and putrify it, and if there be not a sufficient discharge of that malignity by the place of inci. sion, or elsewhere, it lays a foundation for many dangerous dis

eases.

That the operation tends to spread and continue the infection in a place longer, than it might otherwise be.

That the continuing the operation among us is likely to prove of most dangerous consequence."

To Dr. Boylston undoubtedly belongs the merit of introducing this salutary practice into New-England at a period, when it was considered, even in most countries of Europe, as a subject rather of speculation than of practical utility. It was so little known at that time in England, that Dr. Boylston was solicited by the Physicians of London to give a statement of the result of his experiments in Boston. The difficulties, which were opposed to its introduction here, can be estimated only from a view of the limited knowledge of the "Esculapian tribe" and the narrow opinions of the inhabitants. To inoculate with small-pox, was to expose oneself voluntarily to a disease loathsome in appearance, and fatal in its effects. Among the well informed it was thought rash and unjustifiable; among the superstitious, who at that period of our history constituted the largest portion of the community, death from this cause was considered as suicide, and as an obvious indication of divine displeasure. The physicians were illiberal, the people ignorant, and the interested or unjust exertions of the former were warmly supported by the religious zeal of the latter. A new mode of practice which could thus rise superiour to these obstacles carries with it the conviction of its merit. Fortunately for the world, the controversies on this subject have subsided, they are almost forgotten in the brilliant discovery of Jenner; and we may be allowed to anticipate the time when the small pox is to be found only in our systems of nosology.

CORRESPONDENCE.

DEAR BROTther,

LETTER I.

New-Haven, August 5th, 1809.

Since writing to you a letter in which I stated my general views of the necessity and advantages of a new dictionary of our language, it has occurred to me that the opposition to the publication of such a work in this country, and to some books of mine already published, demands of me some further explanations. Under this opposition I have long been silent; and this silence has probably been considered by many persons as an evidence of the justness of the cause of my opposers; or at least, as a tacit acquiescence on my part. A principal reason for this silence however has been, an extreme reluctance on my part to enter into discussions which are generally considered as unentertaining to the mass of readers, and not very interesting even to men of letters.-Another reason has been the political state of the country, which has absorbed all considerations of minor interest.

But as my opposers have undoubtedly done me essential injury, I have to claim the indulgence of my fellow citizens, for offering through the medium of the press a short vindication of my principles and designs, against the objections which have, in various ways, been suggested.

In the first place, it has been objected, that I am attempting to alter the English language. This objection is unfounded; and it seems to have its origin in the opinion that Johnson, Lowth, and English writers of a like character have given us the real language, in its true orthography, and with a just explanation of its principles and idioms. This is a great error, of which the learned in Great Britain, as well as America will unquestionably be disabused. I once entertained a similar opinion. Placing great confidence in the English authors, whose works are in most repute, I labored to make myself master of the language, and once thought that I had nearly accomplished my purpose. I now find this is a great mistake. I had indeed, made very familiar the whole catalogue of names, and could repeat article, noun, adjective and verb, as readily as most of my cotemporaries. But on further examination, I found that I had learnt names without understanding them, or names which do not describe the things intended-and it is a literal truth that it has cost me more time to unlearn "that which is naught," than It did to learn the common principles of philology.

Upon laying aside the works of the great Johnson, and Lowth, and mounting to the earliest records of our language, I found the distribution of the parts of speech to be altogether wrong. This led me to attempt a new classification of words, and a new nomenclature of the parts of speech; of which the Reviewers in the Anthology complain, calling in to their aid a dogma of Dr. Johnson.

But the authority of no man living can make that true which is false. It signifies nothing to teach a child that an is the indefinite article, because the proposition, as a general one, is not true; the word being used indifferently before definite or indefinite nouns. When we say, 66 a star adorns the heavens," we speak of any star indeterminately-but when we say "Venus is a more splendid star than Mars," we use a noun with a, in the most definite sense imaginable.

When we teach our children that if, though, si, and the Hebrew am are conjunctions, we teach them that which is not true; the words are not conjunctions, nor have they the remotest relation to that class of words. They are verbs-they have indeed lost their inflections, but they retain their signification; nor can they be easily and correctly explained without the use of equivalent verbs. A boy may, like a parrot, repeat his rules-“ if is a conjunction--and a conjunction connects sentences." But tell him to resolve this sentence-" if you ask, you will receive," and ask him how if, in this case, connects sentences; will he not feel himself confounded-or consider his understanding abused?

It may be said, and this is often said, that the present classification will answer the purpose-it has answered the purpose-it neither "picks our pockets nor breaks our legs"-our fathers have got along well enough with this arrangement-and so shall we and our children. This is the stale objection to every improvement-and it is urged with as much force by the rude savage who lives by hunting and fishing, against all improvements in agriculture, as it is, by the Reviewers in the Anthology, against a better system of grammar.

But the present systems of grammar do not answer the purpose of explaining language. Take the following example. The Greek word oti is called a conjunction, like quia in Latin, and that in English. In Matthew xvii. 13, we find this word correctly translated that. "Then the disciples understood that he spoke to them of John, the Baptist." Beza, in his Latin version, has given the sense, but with the use of the infinitive verb. But in a translation of Montanus, which accompanies the Greek text by Leusden, the verse is thus rendered, "Tune intellexerunt discipuli, quia de Joanne Baptista dixit eis"which in English, is-" Then the disciples understood, because, or for that he spoke to them of John, the Baptist;" and what sort of translation is this? This error occurs frequently in the same version of Montanus. The truth is neither that in English, nor uti in Greek, nor quod in Latin is ever a conjunction. Nor

are they in this, and the like cases, pronouns; they do not stand in the place of nouns, they are substitutes, or representatives of a sentence, clause, or affirmation. "The disciples understood"....What? Why that which follows, the fact stated in these words: "he spoke to them of John, the Baptist." This is the true construction, and it cannot be explained by the usual rules of grammar.

In Romans viii. 20, 21, our translators have made a like mistake, rendering oti by because, and disjoining hope from the clause to which it belongs. The two verses, rendered according to the copy of Leusden, and the versions of Montanus and Beza, would stand thus:

20. "For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same;

21. "In hope that the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." /

These mistakes are entirely owing to the false or imperfect principles of our grammars, or the erroneous arrangement of the parts of speech. In my Philosophical and Practical Grammar, I have given a new distribution of words, with new explanations, supported by numerous authorities, with a view to correct errors of this kind.

This work has received a large portion of the censure which customarily marks American Reviews. Why are the editors of American publications bent on decrying every thing American? Do they treat publications from English presses with the same severity? When Murray published his Grammar, he introduced a series of tenses under the subjunctive mood; such as, if thou loved, if thou had loved, if thou shall or will love, to the amount of some pages; tenses which are certainly not English; which I presume were never inserted in a similar work before; and which the author himself, in his Syntax, Rule 19, condemned as bad English: yet he suffered these forms of the verb to run through the eighth edition, before he expunged them. Our American Reviewers were as passive as lambs under this outrage upon classical purity. We hear from them no censure....no alarms about innovation!

My Philosophical and Practical Grammar is highly approved in New York and New Jersey-it is used in some reputable colleges. How happens it that in the metropolis of New England, it meets with a different fate? Hear what that elegant classical scholar, President Smith, of Princeton, says on this subject. In a letter to me, dated July 31, 1807, he writes:

"I consider your Philosophical and Practical Grammar, as containing the best analysis of the language which has yet been given to the publick. It has happily improved the opening made many years since into that subject, by the ingenious Horne Tooke. I have often been surprised that his ideas have not been more highly appreciated than they seem to have been by English philologists. Your good judgment has made them the basis of your plan; and on that foundation, you have reared, in my opinion, a more complete system of grammar, than any writer who has preceded you.”

Is it probable that this gentleman has wholly mistaken the merit of my work? Or do Reviewers constitute the only legitimate Board of Criticism on this continent? It is desirable that scholars of candor should every where examine for themselves, and not rest their opinions on the decisions of Reviewers.

It can never be a matter of indifference in any art or science, whether we teach truth or falsehood. The usual classification of words does not comport with truth; it does not assign many words to the class to which they belong; it makes numerous contradictions between principles and practice; and leaves many words without a due explanation of their force and effect in sentences. I therefore have attempted to exhibit a better arrangement. Is this an alteration of the language? Is a new method or distribution of words a change of the language itself? Was any censure ever attached to Dr. Lowth for making a new distribution of verbs? Did any mortal ever think of blaming Linne for new classifications of plants and animals; or Latham for a new classification of birds? Is not the new nomenclature of chemistry far better than the old? Surely a science itself is not changed by the method of teaching it; and that method, which is the most simple, perspicuous, and most conformable to the truth of things, will always be the best. N. WEBSTer.

HON. THOMAS DAWES, ESQ.

LETTER II.

DEAR BROTHER,

New-Haven, August 5, 1809.

I am charged with an attempt to innovate, by changing the orthography of words. To this charge I plead not guilty; for whatever my wishes may be, I yield them to the public sentiment. In the few instances in which I write words a little differently from the present usage, I do not innovate, but reject innovation. When I write fether, lether, and mold, I do nothing more than reduce the words to their original orthography, no other being used in our earliest English books. And when it is just as easy to be right as wrong, why will men object? I write hainous, because it is the true orthography from the French haine, haineux; and this was the manner of writing the word till within an age. The modern orthography is as vitious as it is perplexing. I write cigar, because it is an anglicized word from the Spanish cigarro. I write melasses, because it is the Italian metassa, from mel, honey, or the Greek melas, black. Is this innovation? When authorities are found on both sides of a question, the Lexicographer is at liberty to prefer that orthography which is most simple, or most etymological.