Jennifer Patterson Lorenzetti, Curator
In the library of the McGuffey House & Museum sits a small, glass-topped display box containing an unassuming worn book. This slim volume, bound in wood, is a 1777 edition of The New England Primer (NEP). Although McGuffey’s Eclectic Readers would distinguish themselves in part because of their departure from the content and educational approach of The New England Primer, this book tells us as much about the culture surrounding its revisions and use in the eighteenth century as McGuffey’s series tells us about the nineteenth.
A look inside the NEP shows a strict, Calvinist approach to reading. The alphabet is accompanied by couplets emphasizing Christian doctrine. “A,” for example, is paired with “In Adam’s fall, we sinned all,” emphasizing original sin. Most of the volume is dedicated to a catechism, a question-and-answer style lesson format in which students memorize rote responses to questions about Christian doctrine and belief.
However, the 1777 edition of the NEP is just one example of this book. The 1777 printing is the most common one to find today, due to its wide distribution and future printings of facsimile copies. The text itself, however, dates from the end of the seventeenth century and was regularly revised to reflect issues and interests in the early United States. Kyle B. Roberts hails these revisions as evidence of the NEP’s enduring appeal. “That fluidity and openness allowed the Primer to change with the times and remain a relevant text.”[1] Along the way, it reflected current political issues. While a 1727 edition included the couplet, “Our King the good; no man of blood,” post-Revolution editions included, “The British King, lost states thirteen.”[2] Attitudes toward the British monarchy and the new nation sat side by side with the ancient and seemingly immutable lessons from the Bible.
However unchangeable the lessons may have seemed, the NEP varied wildly between editions, as did many books at the time. Authors may or may not have been credited or even involved in revisions; publishers made their own changes for their intended market, as did the printers who produced the book. This means there is no single canonical NEP.
What does this mean for those of us who study McGuffey’s Eclectic Readers? First, we must acknowledge that both the NEP and the Readers were revised and re-revised to reflect the world in which they were used. While the NEP reflected changes as a new nation emerged from a group of colonies, the Readers reflected what characteristics were needed to succeed on the frontier and later in an established country.
Second, and perhaps even more important to historians, is the fact that no one book can be called “The” NEP or “The” McGuffey’s Eclectic Readers and reliably indicate certain content without the publication date and often the city, publisher, and printer of the book. Arguments that rest on certain quotes or inclusions from these books are valuable mainly in the context of their publication history.
[1] Kyle B. Roberts, “Rethinking The New-England Primer,” The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 104, no. 4 (December 2010): 489–523, https://doi.org/10.1086/680973, 497.
[2] Kyle B. Roberts, “Rethinking The New-England Primer,” The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 104, no. 4 (December 2010): 489–523, https://doi.org/10.1086/680973, 498-502.
Sources
Roberts, Kyle B. “Rethinking The New-England Primer.” The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 104, no. 4 (December 2010): 489–523. https://doi.org/10.1086/680973.
Webster, Ira, Francis Joseph Hogan, and John Cotton. The New England Primer improved, for the more easy attaining the true reading of English, to which is added the Assembly of Divines, and Mr. Cotton’s Catechism. Boston: Printed by E. Draper and sold by J. Boyle, 1777.