McGuffey Readers: Difference between revisions
imported>James F. Perry (→A is for Axe: the continued use of the McGuffey Readers: outline sections) |
imported>James F. Perry (→1838 plagiarism lawsuit: additional material + links) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
===1838 plagiarism lawsuit=== | ===1838 plagiarism lawsuit=== | ||
This initial publishing venture was soon involved in court litigation brought by a Boston firm | This initial publishing venture was soon involved in court litigation brought by a Boston firm (publishers of a competing schools' text, the ''Worcester Readers'') claiming that certain of the selections in the 1836-37 version of the ''McGuffey Readers'' violated their [[copyright]] holdings. In fact, in December 1838, an injunction was issued against Truman & Smith prohibiting them from further distribution of the materials pending [[trial]] on the charges. But by then, the publishers had combed the books and removed all material which could be even unreasonably suspect of offending the copyright statutes and brought forth a new edition - that of 1838 - suitably labeled "Revised and Improved". | ||
The remainder of the suit, dealing with the prior distribution of the original 1836-37 version, was dismissed upon payment of a sum of money to the plaintiffs, although the publishing firm continued to assert that the disputed material was "common property". | The remainder of the suit, dealing with the prior distribution of the original 1836-37 version, was dismissed upon payment of a sum of [[money]] to the plaintiffs, although the publishing firm continued to assert that the disputed material was "common property". | ||
The questions surrounding this lawsuit have provoked spirited debate, not only at the time, but in the years since. Opinion is divided on the matter, with critics of Dr. McGuffey asserting that the revision of the material and the payment of money essentially proves the truth of the claims<ref>To cite just a couple of examples, Jennifer Monaghan, in ''The Textbook as Commercial Enterprise'', states; "Not only can we not credit McGuffey with any of the subsequent success of the readers, as they were revised by others, but even what we know he did write is somewhat compromised by charges of plagiarism. . . . The truth of this allegation was acknowledged by an out-of-court settlement in favour of the Worcester team for $2,000, as well as the immediate revision of the offending McGuffey Readers." | The questions surrounding this lawsuit have provoked spirited debate, not only at the time, but in the years since. Opinion is divided on the matter, with critics of Dr. McGuffey asserting that the revision of the material and the payment of money essentially proves the truth of the claims<ref>To cite just a couple of examples, Jennifer Monaghan, in ''The Textbook as Commercial Enterprise'', states; "Not only can we not credit McGuffey with any of the subsequent success of the readers, as they were revised by others, but even what we know he did write is somewhat compromised by charges of plagiarism. . . . The truth of this allegation was acknowledged by an out-of-court settlement in favour of the Worcester team for $2,000, as well as the immediate revision of the offending McGuffey Readers." | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
Again, James H. Rodabaugh, in a review of a book by H.C. Minnich, ''William Holmes McGuffey and his Readers'', states; "In this production McGuffey's intellectual honesty is certainly questionable. . . .The charge was made that McGuffey had copied many of Worcester's original articles, rules, directions, notes, questions and exercises, and had adopted the same general plan as that of the Worcester Readers. . . . Suffice it to say, the court indicated a reaction favorable to Worcester, and McGuffey's publishers settled out of court for the sum of $2000. The publications already begun were halted and adequate revisions were made."</ref>. | Again, James H. Rodabaugh, in a review of a book by H.C. Minnich, ''William Holmes McGuffey and his Readers'', states; "In this production McGuffey's intellectual honesty is certainly questionable. . . .The charge was made that McGuffey had copied many of Worcester's original articles, rules, directions, notes, questions and exercises, and had adopted the same general plan as that of the Worcester Readers. . . . Suffice it to say, the court indicated a reaction favorable to Worcester, and McGuffey's publishers settled out of court for the sum of $2000. The publications already begun were halted and adequate revisions were made."</ref>. | ||
The defenders of McGuffey | The defenders of McGuffey and his publishers, at the time and since, have charged that the plaintiffs were acting out of sectional interests and were resorting to the courts in an attempt to gain leverage for their own pecuniary interests<ref>In the Preface to the 1838 edition, explaining the circumstances of the new version, the publishers made this explicit and added their own clear appeal to western sentiment over against the eastern establshment. More recently, Minnchin, in his 1936 book, ''McGuffy and his Readers'' likewise attributed the suit to the business and sectional interests of the plaintiffs.</ref> But, whatever the success or failure of such arguments in the realm of public opinion, there still remains the legal and [[ethics|ethical]] questions surrounding this episode. | ||
In this regard, it may be fairly disputed as to whether the payment of a settlement fee is such a certain indicator of truth as some have averred<ref>Then, as now, such settlements are often agreed upon as simply a way of getting the suit "off the table" and continuing with one's business as well as avoiding the expenses of conducting the matter in the courts. In this connection, if we are to believe the claims of the publishers to have sold 700,000 copies of their Readers by 1841, and given the price of the items in question, the $2000 payment represented a relatively small amount of their total revenue (around 2%) and far less of what they could expect to garner in future sales.</ref>. It should also be considered that at the time there was an unclear legal situation. The concept of copyright itself was relatively new, the foundational decision of the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] in the matter [[Wheaton v. Peters]] being issued only in 1834. | |||
===Further revisions=== | ===Further revisions=== | ||
Revision as of 12:17, 23 March 2009
The McGuffey Readers, first published in 1836-37, were a set of highly influential school textbooks for use in the elementary grades in the United States. Indeed, owing to their widespread usage over many years, they played an important role in shaping the American character itself. From the year in which they were first published, and for nearly a century thereafter, successive generations of American schoolchildren used these readers to acquire basic literacy and to imbibe the moral lessons they taught.
Through the 1850s, William Holmes McGuffey (1800-73) was the author of the first four volumes of what would eventually become a six-volume set, one for each grade level. In subsequent years, a series of editors took over the responsibility for the readers, which nevertheless were faithful in retaining their original character as moral shapers of youth.
A major revision in 1879 altered the slant of the readers away from the stark Calvinism which had marked the earlier versions, but did so without sacrificing the religious and moral objectives.
The readers have sold over 125 million copies, and remain in demand among many who are dissatisfied with modern trends in education and seek a return to a more traditional, "values oriented" education of an earlier era.
Publication history
It was at the request of the fledgling publishing firm of Truman & Smith, of Cincinnati, Ohio, and in accordance with their general plan as to size and number, that William H. McGuffey, then the President of Cincinnati College, was contracted to produce the first edition of the readers. Issued in 1836/37, it consisted of four books which were designed not only to teach the young students how to read, but in the third and fourth numbers of the series, to provide suitably moral and instructive reading examples.
In the same year, 1837, Alexander H. McGuffey, the brother of William H., was engaged to produce a Speller, which presented information on sounds, pronunciation, syllabication, and spelling.
1838 plagiarism lawsuit
This initial publishing venture was soon involved in court litigation brought by a Boston firm (publishers of a competing schools' text, the Worcester Readers) claiming that certain of the selections in the 1836-37 version of the McGuffey Readers violated their copyright holdings. In fact, in December 1838, an injunction was issued against Truman & Smith prohibiting them from further distribution of the materials pending trial on the charges. But by then, the publishers had combed the books and removed all material which could be even unreasonably suspect of offending the copyright statutes and brought forth a new edition - that of 1838 - suitably labeled "Revised and Improved".
The remainder of the suit, dealing with the prior distribution of the original 1836-37 version, was dismissed upon payment of a sum of money to the plaintiffs, although the publishing firm continued to assert that the disputed material was "common property".
The questions surrounding this lawsuit have provoked spirited debate, not only at the time, but in the years since. Opinion is divided on the matter, with critics of Dr. McGuffey asserting that the revision of the material and the payment of money essentially proves the truth of the claims[1].
The defenders of McGuffey and his publishers, at the time and since, have charged that the plaintiffs were acting out of sectional interests and were resorting to the courts in an attempt to gain leverage for their own pecuniary interests[2] But, whatever the success or failure of such arguments in the realm of public opinion, there still remains the legal and ethical questions surrounding this episode.
In this regard, it may be fairly disputed as to whether the payment of a settlement fee is such a certain indicator of truth as some have averred[3]. It should also be considered that at the time there was an unclear legal situation. The concept of copyright itself was relatively new, the foundational decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the matter Wheaton v. Peters being issued only in 1834.
Further revisions
A few years after this unfortunate incident, in 1841, Alexander H. McGuffey was contracted to produce the Rhetorical Guide which was to be used alongside the Readers as a continuation of the series. When, in 1843, the first four Readers were again revised and reissued as "Newly Revised", the Rhetorical Guide was adduced to the lot as the Fifth Reader of the series. Then, in 1853, the entire series was reordered and issued as a six-volume set, labled the New McGuffey Readers.
Contents and description of the 1879 Revised Edition
First Eclectic Reader
Second Eclectic Reader
two-syllable limit
Third Eclectic Readers
Fourth Eclectic Readers
Fifth Eclectic Reader
The Fifth Reader begins with an introductory section concerning the reading of literature, including articulation ("Articulation is the utterance of the elementary sounds of a language, and their combinations"), inflections ("Inflections are slides of the voice upward or downward"), accent("In every word which contains more than one syllable, one of the syllables is pronounced with a somewhat greater stress of voice. ... This syllable is said to be accented."), emphasis ("A word is said to be emphasized when it is uttered with a greater stress of voice than the other words wit which it is connected"), modulation ("Modulatioins includes the variations of the voice."), and poetic pauses ("The object of these is to promote the melody"). Various rules are given concerning these subjects, with examples. The whole is followed by a section of exercises illustrating the rules and providing practice therein.
Next come the reading passages themselves, numbering 117. Included are selections from Louisa May Alcott, William Ellery Channing, James Fenimore Cooper, Charles Dickens, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Washington Irving, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, William Shakespeare, Robert Southey, John Greenleaf Whittier, and, of course, the Bible, with sometimes several selections from each.
Most of the selections have a strong moral quality and, should anyone miss the point, the moral is frequently explained in rather direct terms in the closing paragraph of the selection. Those selections which are by a named author are prefaced with a brief introductory paragraph giving some rudimentary details concerning the author and his/her life and works. All the selections are followed by a section of vacabulary definitions in which the more unfamiliar words are explained.
Sixth Eclectic Reader
A is for Axe: the continued appeal of the McGuffey Readers
In colonial America, the basic function of education was to prepare the young students for life as good Christians. This approach had its origins during the Reformation when literacy was promoted as a means of enabling people to read the Bible. Following the Revolution, a gradual change occurred, in which it was considered increasingly important that the citizens of the newly free Republic, based on the voting franchise, be prepared for participation as a self-governing people.
At the same time, an effort was made, most notably by Noah Webster, with his Dictionary of the English Language and his Elementary Spelling Book, to create a lexicon and instructional material uniquely "American" in tone.
Values debate
Pedagogy
Simpler times mythology
Notes
- ↑ To cite just a couple of examples, Jennifer Monaghan, in The Textbook as Commercial Enterprise, states; "Not only can we not credit McGuffey with any of the subsequent success of the readers, as they were revised by others, but even what we know he did write is somewhat compromised by charges of plagiarism. . . . The truth of this allegation was acknowledged by an out-of-court settlement in favour of the Worcester team for $2,000, as well as the immediate revision of the offending McGuffey Readers." Again, James H. Rodabaugh, in a review of a book by H.C. Minnich, William Holmes McGuffey and his Readers, states; "In this production McGuffey's intellectual honesty is certainly questionable. . . .The charge was made that McGuffey had copied many of Worcester's original articles, rules, directions, notes, questions and exercises, and had adopted the same general plan as that of the Worcester Readers. . . . Suffice it to say, the court indicated a reaction favorable to Worcester, and McGuffey's publishers settled out of court for the sum of $2000. The publications already begun were halted and adequate revisions were made."
- ↑ In the Preface to the 1838 edition, explaining the circumstances of the new version, the publishers made this explicit and added their own clear appeal to western sentiment over against the eastern establshment. More recently, Minnchin, in his 1936 book, McGuffy and his Readers likewise attributed the suit to the business and sectional interests of the plaintiffs.
- ↑ Then, as now, such settlements are often agreed upon as simply a way of getting the suit "off the table" and continuing with one's business as well as avoiding the expenses of conducting the matter in the courts. In this connection, if we are to believe the claims of the publishers to have sold 700,000 copies of their Readers by 1841, and given the price of the items in question, the $2000 payment represented a relatively small amount of their total revenue (around 2%) and far less of what they could expect to garner in future sales.