A Dictionary of Modern English Usage

How to account for this phenomenon? Part of it is because Fowler's reputation only grew after his death as several generations of writers sang his praises and adhered to, or sometimes fussed about, his many dicta on usage questions both great and small. And as the years went by, and as the pages of his masterpiece gave way to wine stains and silverfish or the few remaining copies disappeared from libraries, he himself became a legend. Not everything he wrote is considered correct today, nor was it then. And sometimes the succinct yet magisterial little essays he wrote were followed by other little essays that were all but impenetrable, obtuse and somewhat overbearing. No matter. The good greatly outweighed the occasional misjudgment, and the education he afforded us remains.

Another part of the story is that there is something very properly English and wonderfully nostalgic about the man himself. He was a bit of a character who lied about his age and joined the army when he was 56-years-old to fight the Germans in the Great War (only to faint on the parade grounds), a man who earlier gave up a teaching career because he did not feel it was his responsibility to prepare a student for the seminary. More than anything, though, the fact that this book is still in demand is a testament to the high regard and affection felt by the literate public toward Fowler himself.

What Fowler knew and preached was that before we could presume to be literary artists or journalists or even authors of readable letters we must of necessity, if we are to be effective, be craftsmen. Central to his purpose was the belief that the right word in its proper place and context constituted the backbone and much of the muscle and sinew of forthright and effective writing. That belief along with Fowler's celebrated passion for the concise and the correct, and his intolerance of ignorance and humbug, coupled with his sometimes incomparable expression, long ago won him the undying respect and admiration of careful writers of the English language the world over.

But this is something of a problem. Since Fowler last set pen to page some seventy-one years ago (he died in 1933), the English language has changed and grown enormously. What was correct and effective then, as well as what was ineffective, offensively brash or downright ugly has in some cases become acceptable and even felicitous. So, like it or not, Fowler had to be updated, and of course there was no shortage of lexicographers, linguists, grammarians, journalists and others looking to do the job. Furthermore, the "Great Divide" between American English and British English needed to be explained, recorded, and codified. Some of the people who have joined in this enterprise over the years have been H. L. Mencken, Jens Jespersen, Margaret Nicholson, Dwight MacDonald, Bergen and Cornelia Evans, and more recently, Bryan A. Garner and R.W. Burchfield, and many others. I think all of them, if they looked over their shoulder would see upon the wall an especially sober portrait of Fowler passing silent judgment upon their protracted labors. Certainly on their desks would be this book.

So I recommend that you buy that very impressive book by Garner (Garner's Modern American Usage), especially if you are an American, or splurge for a copy of that underrated third edition edited by Burchfield, and that you consult them as well as this venerable authority. As you use the books you may compare and contrast and get a nice feel for where the language has been and where it is headed.

Such a sentiment would, I imagine, sit well with Henry Watson Fowler who, some eighty years ago in collaboration with his younger brother Frank, wrote this famous book of English language guidance and prescription (and proscription!). Central to his purpose was the belief that the right word at the right time in its proper place and context constituted the backbone and much of the muscle and sinew of forthright and effective writing. That belief along with Fowler's celebrated passion for good writing and his intolerance of ignorance and humbug, coupled with his sometimes incomparable expression, long ago won him the undying respect and admiration of careful writers of the English language the world over.

And this has been something of a problem. Since Fowler last set pen to page some seventy-one years ago (he died in 1933), the English language has changed and grown enormously. What was correct and effective in 1926 (the year the 1st Ed. of A Dictionary of Modern English Usage was published), as well as what was ineffective, offensively brash or downright ugly has in some cases become acceptable and even felicitous. So, like it or not, Fowler had to be updated, and of course there was no shortage of lexicographers, linguists, grammarians, journalists and others looking to do the job. Furthermore, the "Great Divide" between American English and British English needed to be explained, recorded, and codified. Some of the people who have joined in this enterprise over the years have been H. L. Mencken, Jens Jespersen, Margaret Nicholson, Dwight MacDonald, Bergen and Cornelia Evans, and more recently, Bryan A. Garner and R.W. Burchfield (who edits the Third Edition of this book), and many others. I think all of them, if they looked over their shoulder would see upon the wall an especially sober portrait of Fowler passing silent judgment upon their protracted labors. Certainly on their desks would be this book.

And of course there is Sir Ernest Gowers who revised and edited this celebrated Second Edition. He writes in the Preface that the most important changes he had to make were those of vocabulary itself. "Words unknown in Fowler's day--teenager for instance--are now among our hardest worked." He adds that "Vogue words get worn out and others take their place." He admits to having omitted "one or two" of Fowler's famous little essays as being "no longer relevant to our literary fashions." (Would that he had preserved such specimens in an appendix.) He also allows that "many" of Fowler's "articles" called "for some modernization," and therefore, "a few have been rewritten in whole or part, and several new ones added."

So this is not your pristine Fowler's, yet so carefully did Gowers preserve and build upon that earlier edifice that most people have been quite pleased. In fact so nearly universal has been the admiration for this particular book that the so-called Third Edition of 1996, edited by the aforementioned Burchfield, has yet to receive universal acceptance and is indeed disparaged in some circles as not being true to the letter and spirit of Fowler.

For me two things stand out in this much admired Second Edition: (1) the absolute delight one finds in the many pronouncements on language; and (2) the odd but satisfying mix of the old-fashioned prescriptive grammarian commingled with someone who disdains pedantry for its own sake, and condemns what is seen as unnecessarily purist. Perhaps more than anything what one loves about this book is Fowler's incisive dry wit. Here is Fowler/Gowers on two words easily confused (those are my quotation marks since Amazon does not support the italics used in the original):

prescribe, proscribe. These words are often confused, especially by the use of "pro-" for "pre-." "Pro-" means to put outside the protection of the law, to denounce as dangerous; "pre-" means to lay down as a rule or direction to be followed. "If I look at the list of proscribed authors in our various universities, I notice with pleasure that since 1940 no year has passed without Jane Austen appearing in the syllabus of at least one." The speaker clearly did not mean, as one might infer from the word he used (or perhaps the printer substituted), that Jane Austen's works were on the Index.

Also of interest here is Gowers' Preface which amounts to an understanding and appreciation of Fowler and his work.