A look inside the NEP <\/em>shows a strict, Calvinist approach to reading. The alphabet is accompanied by couplets emphasizing Christian doctrine. \u201cA,\u201d for example, is paired with \u201cIn Adam\u2019s fall, we sinned all,\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n However, the 1777 edition of the NEP<\/em> 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<\/em>\u2019s enduring appeal. \u201cThat fluidity and openness allowed the Primer<\/em> to change with the times and remain a relevant text.\u201d[1]<\/a> Along the way, it reflected current political issues. While a 1727 edition included the couplet, \u201cOur King the good; no man of blood,\u201d post-Revolution editions included, \u201cThe British King, lost states thirteen.\u201d[2]<\/a> Attitudes toward the British monarchy and the new nation sat side by side with the ancient and seemingly immutable lessons from the Bible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However unchangeable the lessons may have seemed, the NEP <\/em>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<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What does this mean for those of us who study McGuffey\u2019s Eclectic Readers<\/em>? First, we must acknowledge that both the NEP <\/em>and the Readers <\/em>were revised and re-revised to reflect the world in which they were used. While the NEP <\/em>reflected changes as a new nation emerged from a group of colonies, the Readers <\/em>reflected what characteristics were needed to succeed on the frontier and later in an established country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Second, and perhaps even more important to historians, is the fact that no one book can be called \u201cThe\u201d NEP <\/em>or \u201cThe\u201d McGuffey\u2019s Eclectic Readers <\/em>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [1]<\/a> Kyle B. Roberts, \u201cRethinking The New-England Primer,\u201d The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America<\/em> 104, no. 4 (December 2010): 489\u2013523, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1086\/680973, 497.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [2]<\/a> Kyle B. Roberts, \u201cRethinking The New-England Primer,\u201d The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America<\/em> 104, no. 4 (December 2010): 489\u2013523, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1086\/680973, 498-502.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Sources<\/p>\n\n\n\n Roberts, Kyle B. \u201cRethinking The New-England Primer.\u201d The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America<\/em> 104, no. 4 (December 2010): 489\u2013523. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1086\/680973<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019s Catechism<\/em>. Boston: Printed by E. Draper and sold by J. Boyle, 1777.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"![\"\"](\"https:\/\/sites.miamioh.edu\/mcguffey-house-and-museum\/files\/2024\/07\/Image-7-20-24-at-3.07\u202fPM.jpeg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n