New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-09-29
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
MAGMA CHARTA DAY AS AN AMERICAN
IIOLIDAY-THE PATHOLOGICAL
PATRIOT

It has been thought Of late years that holidava
| including Sir John Lubbock's melancholy RAM
| Holidays. were becoming rather numerous In this
| country. But the Council OF the Colonial Insu
| tute wants one more. This respectable bodv
| lately petitioned the Queen for an imperial hoi
| day. They asked that zone day in the year shan
be set apart for universal national celebration" al
over the British world; and suggested the Queens
| birthday Lord Rosebery, who is an Imperialist
| IL anybody is. does not like the proposal Tho
Queens birthday comes too near other hoidaya
| That IL an digestion Of detail. The Spectator
suggests Magma Charta Day. June Is. the date a.
the signing and sealing Of that great instrument
on which rests the civil liberty of the English
race And this journal handsomely adds: "Ons
advantage or Magma Charta Day would be that
| It would not leave the Americans out Magma
charta is part Of the law OF the United States"
1t is, but none the less Is this very large ex.
tension of the original suggestion. "EmpIrs
Day" is one thing; a day for all English-speakins
peoples IS another. suppose there may be per.
sons in the United States who would decline to
Join in a celebration Of that kind. Or does our
friend-he is really friend, this writer. though
sometimes cahdld-intend that the British alone
shall do the celebrating, on their own behalf and
ours? A JOINT ceremony might be awkward to
manage Would there be proclamation or two
proclarnations, one by the Queen and one by the
President? II It is to be a Bank Holiday an act
OF Parliament would be required here and an act
OF Congress in America Or must there be forty.
four separate acts by f5rty-four separate State
Legislatures? And II So what would be the
probability OF their all agreeing?
There might even be a difficulty about style
and title Is II to be day for the English.
speaking race or an Anglo-American day, Of
what? There are always Scotchmen who protest
against any use Of the word English which In.
cludes or Is meant 70 include the scotch. But
can you say Britsh-spsaking? Even the Scot
knows that TO be Impossible. There Is no British
language. If there were. the American who dis
likes to admit that he writes or speaks English
often with good reason-would be no better con-
tent with British. But would he say American
speak,ng? What is Mr. Branier Matthews's
solution OF this linguistic perplexity? He is the
man who has carried patriotism into philoiogy as
far as anybody or farther and has lectured Great
Britain on her CRITICISMS" VIII he Invent some
word or phrase which shall accurately indicate
the language spoken and written in Great Britain
and the United States or so much OF IL as 10
common to both countries, and yet DO no vio-
lence to history or philology on the one side and
10 patriotic pride on the other? II SIR. Brander
Matthews cannot. who can?
The American whose patriotism. Ike that Of
Mr.. Brander Matthews. Is PATHOLOGICAL must be
aware that the problem for which a solution 10
now sought is not a new one. !, Is at least AZ
old as 1898 do not know how much further
back IL nigh; be traced. Not think, To the period
Of the Revolution. Cur forefathers had other
things to think OF in those days than mere nice
ties OF expression. Even in lsi2-li protests
agains, the use OF the word English to describe
the language then spoken in America were not IN.
frequent There were protests as early as lIS
IL not b~forc. but. though American in origin
they were no: directed against the use Of the
word English. Noah Webster describes himself
as having published. just al the close OF the
Revolution, IAN elementary book FOR facilitating
the acquisition Of our vernacular tongue. and Tor
correcting a vicious pronunciation which pre-
vailed extensively among Il common people OF
this country" That, IL no, the first, was among
the first. and II followed by his "Compen'
dious Dictionary" in lSo, His views became
more definite az ne pursued hts self-appointed
task. until in 1928 he published the first edition
Of his American Dictionary OF the English Ian.
guage.
Bur Websters conception II his duty as do
tionarymaker did not even then. nor ever lead
him 10 devise a new name for the language. nor
the English language. What he did was to label
his lexicon The American Dictionary OF the Eng
lish Language" The interesting Preface TO the
first edition, 1923 not only lends no countenance
10 the modern notion OF Amercanizng the lam
guage-a notion which. though confined to few
persons. does exist-but contains passages
wholly Inconsistent with that notion The FIRE.
quent use of the phrase our vernacular tongue
is inconsistent with It, for by It Webster meant
I'm every case the English language. II you turn
to his definition OF the adjective vernacular you
find this: Belonging TO the country Of ones
birth; ones own by birth nature; native, in
digenous:-now used chiefly Of language; as. Eng.
lish is vernacular language" And under the
noun. the most significant and apt definition 10
ones mother tongue" There have been
therefore. but one intention I'm the mind OF Web
ster when he spoke Of his own life as devoted
to reading and TO an investigation OF the origin
and principles of vernacular language and
especially particular examination OF the best
English writer's with view To A comparison OF
their style and phraseoogy with those OF the
best American writer's and with our colloquiA
usage"
II any body ventures to talk about American
coloquial usage to-day, the pathological patriot
Is up in arms a, once. Yet II there be an au'
thority on whom the pathological patriot bases
himself, II is assuredly Noah Webster. Remem'
bering what novelties Webster introduced, OF
which the existing and mucn chastened Revised
and International Dictionary has rejected great
part. the reader may be surprised 70 hnd MN
urging that the language should be rescueo
from the mischievous influence Of scioiists anu
that dabbline spirit OF innovation which Is per
petualiy disturbing its settled usages and nihs
1t with anomalies" He himself has proved 70
be the most mischicvous influence OF all INC
dabbling spirit of innovation was visible on every
page Of his first dictionary. and nobody ever
so much disturbed the settled usages OF the Eng
lsh language or filled 1t with many anomaieA
But he never avowed design to create an Amer
lean language. Nor, think. did any OF his ed'