New plans (1800s–1840s)

De Smedt (1979) shows that the first half of the nineteenth century, situated between the well-known dictionary plans of the Maatschappij and Weiland’s dictionary on the one hand, and the emergence of the WNT from c. 1850 onward on the other, was not a period of lexicographical silence. Instead, new plans were developed.

In 1808, the Koninklijk Instituut van Wetenschappen, Letterkunde en Schoone Kunsten (‘Royal Institute of Sciences, Languages and Arts’) was founded, a national

academy that would be transformed into the still existing Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen (‘Royal Academy of Sciences’) in 1851. The Tweede Klasse

‘Second Class’ of the Koninklijk Instituut was devoted to Dutch language, linguistics and history. The Tweede Klasse had been ordered by the King to make a new Dutch dictionary (De Smedt 1979: 111). By April 1809, the second class had drawn up a report entitled Verslag betrekkelijk de inrigting en vervaardiging van het algemeen Hollandsch woordenboek (‘Report concerning the design and creation of a general Hollandic dictionary’, cf. Verslag 1851–1852 [1809]). The report was signed by J. W. Bussingh, the poet Willem Bilderdijk, the authors of the national spelling and grammar Siegenbeek and Weiland, and the former minister of education van der Palm. At the annual meeting of the Koninklijk Instituut later that year, from 28 August to 1 September 1809, the report was approved of, though the institute’s chair remarked that to make such a general dictionary would take quite some time (De Smedt 1979: 111). In the next few years, excerpts were made and materials were gathered, as before, but a new general dictionary of the Dutch language was never published (De Smedt 1979: 111–112). After years of plans and good intentions, in October 1815 the second class of the Koninklijk Instituut officially abandoned the idea of a new dictionary (van den Berg 1999: 156).

One of the related activities of the members of the second class was the col-lection of obsolete words and expressions from medieval and seventeenth-century texts (Uitlegkundig woordenboek 1825: XI–XII; van den Berg 1999: 157). The works of the seventeenth-century literary author P. C. Hooft were among these texts, and between 1825 and 1838 the Tweede Klasse published the Uitlegkundig woordenboek op de werken van Pieter Korneliszoon Hooft (‘Explanatory dictionary of the works of Pieter Cornelisz. Hooft’) in four volumes, the only tangible result of the efforts to create a general Dutch dictionary (cf. De Smedt 1979: 112).

The Verslag of 1809 was wholly in line with the eighteenth-century plans developed within the Maatschapppij, arguing for the incorporation of old and/

or obsolete words, specialised vocabulary as well as regional items (De Smedt 1979: 112–120). The proposed title was Algemeen Hollandsch Woordenboek (cf.

Verslag 1851–1852 [1809]: 323), where Hollandsch means Dutch, confirming the widespread Hollandocentrism already criticised by van Iperen (see Section 7.2).

The authors adopted an inclusive interpretation of the term algemeen ‘general’. They started by identifying the type of words that should be included in the dictionary (Verslag 1851–1852 [1809]: 324–326). They distinguished regional and local words, archaic and obsolete words, specialised vocabulary used by scientists, artists, arti-sans and so on, and loans and loan translations (basterdwoorden ‘bastard words’, cf. Verslag 1851–1852 [1809]: 325). Important restrictions on the inclusion of the latter were that they needed to be more or less commonly used, and moreover, unreplaceable by even verstaanbare en gebruikelijke Hollandsche woorden ‘equally

understandable and usual Hollandic words’ (Verslag 1851–1852 [1809]: 326). In addition, the report argued for appendices comprising lists of the most common proper names and toponyms (Verslag 1851–1852 [1809]: 326).

In the same period, in 1809, the Tweede Klasse published a report on the ac-ceptability of loans and loan translations, arguing for the compilation of two lists of words, the first comprising bastaardwoorden that should be kept, and the sec-ond bastaardwoorden that should be removed from the language, while offering a method to decide on the acceptability of individual items (Verslag 1809). The varia-tional dimension related to the origin of words still constituted the greatest challenge.

Both reports produced by the Tweede Klasse were discussed by J. C. W. le Jeune in the third volume of his Bouwstoffen voor de Nederlandsche letterkunde en hare geschiedenis (‘Materials for the study of Dutch literature and its history’), published in The Hague in 1835 (see le Jeune 1835: 133–195, cf. De Smedt 1979: 122–124).

After having summarised the two reports, le Jeune presented his own ideas. He advocated a volledige Woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal ‘complete dictionary of the Dutch language’, comprising die taal in haren geheelen omvang ‘this language in its entire magnitude’ (le Jeune 1835: 158). These descriptions already indicate le Jeune’s inclusive approach, which is even more explicit in the following quote.

Temporally, this dictionary thus comprises everything that has been part of the language, even the smallest parts, from the origin of the language onward; spatially, it comprises all the places in the Netherlands where the language has been spoken.

The classical, pure language, therefore, is only a part of it.⁷

Le Jeune embraced the diachronic and regional inclusiveness advocated by the Maatschappij and the Koninklijk Instituut, and moreover, explicitly referred to the written mode, dominated by the literary tradition, as just one variety of the whole language.

A few years later, Constant Philippe Serrure published a short essay in a pe-riodical published in Louvain (Serrure 1841–1842; cf. De Smedt 1979: 124–127).

Like le Jeune, Serrure referred to the report made by the Tweede Klasse. Serrure, however, included a warning about the northern, Hollandic orientation of many of the existing dictionaries and dictionary plans (Serrure 1841–1842: 278–279; De Smedt 1979: 124–125). The spoken language in the southern Low Countries had remained geheel en al onbekend ‘entirely unknown’ to many of the northern Dutch language commentators (Serrure 1841–1842: 278). Because of this deficiency, a new general dictionary of the Dutch language should pay special attention to de tael van

7. “Naar tijdsruimte, omvat alzoo dat Woordenboek alles wat, van het begin der tale af, eenig ook zelfs ’t geringste deel er van uitmaakte; naar plaatsbepaling, alle oorden van Nederland, waar zij gesproken is. De klassieke, zuivere taal is er dus slechts een gedeelte van” (le Jeune 1835: 158).

Belgie ‘the language of Belgium’ (Serrure 1841–1842: 279). Given the disregard of the spoken language in Belgium, a first step would be to draw up regional and local dictionaries, so-called idioticons, which could subsequently be used as materials for the new general dictionary of Dutch (Serrure 1841–1842: 282). By way of example, the second part of Serrure’s essay comprises a short Leuvensch idiotikon ‘dictionary of the language of Louvain’ (Serrure 1841–1842: 286–299).

De Smedt (1979: 126–127) mentions a few other Belgian language observers who alluded to the necessity of a new dictionary in the late 1830s and early 1840s.

One of them was Ferdinand Augustijn Snellaert, who repeatedly argued that north-ern and southnorth-ern linguists should work jointly on a dictionary. Some ten years later, this would indeed happen, and Snellaert played a prominent role in this.